DOCSLIB.ORG

Unclassified Unclassified

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unclassified Unclassified UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED Evidence Number Name E23 Pagoda PR E24 Paul Flynn MP E25 PCRC (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee) E26 PLMR (Political Lobbying and Media Relations Ltd) E27 Political Intelligence E28 PRCA (Public Relations Consultants Association) E29 Ranelagh International Ltd E30 Rowan Public Affairs E31 (SPA) Society of Parliamentary Agents E32 (TPA) TaxPayers’ Alliance E33 Transparency International UK E34 UKPAC E35 Unlock Democracy E36 William Dinan and David Miller UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED E23: Pagoda PR 1. Is there any reason to think that lobbying per se is a problem; and is there any evidence that abuse of lobbying is widespread or systemic, as opposed to exceptional behaviour by a few? Not in itself, although recent evidence would indicate that some parliamentarians may be susceptible to influence on the basis of inappropriate inducements. This does, as the paper suggests, damage the reputation of lobbying and parliamentary engagement more widely. In this respect, there is a risk that efforts to encourage more lobbying/campaigning from wider sections of society – especially young people – are undermined. We need to proactively promote the positive achievements of lobbying if we are to secure the confidence and participation of the next generation, who will otherwise view Parliament with cynicism. Politicians could do more to say when they have been persuaded by well run, well evidenced and transparent lobbying campaigns. 2. How wide should the definition of lobbying be? What activities should be excluded from the definition? This is extremely difficult because the current definitions rely on determining an attempt to ‘influence’. In many cases such intent is very difficult to determine. The engagement may often have been initiated by the politicians with the intention on influencing the other party. It may be part of a process of ‘good practice stakeholder engagement’ which companies are encouraged to pursue with only very general ‘reputational objectives’. Most effective lobbying involves networks of third party advocates, social and traditional media commentators where it is not clear who initiated the lobbying (indeed several may typically try to claim the credit in the twittersphere) 3. Is the proposed legislation for a Statutory Register of lobbyists likely to be sufficient to address the problem; and are the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s proposals[1] (wider registration, disclosure of issues and enhanced Ministerial disclosure) necessary, either as an interim measure or longer term? No, recent events have suggested that further regulation of members’ interests and disclosure is required. Ultimately public opinion will probably only be satisfied if measures go beyond disclosure to outlawing non-exec and paid advisory roles. 4. To what extent should the focus of finding a solution to the problems around lobbying be on those that are likely to be lobbied rather than those who do the lobbying? Ultimately, the solution will lie more with the lobbied. However, the PR and lobbying industry still needs to do much more to raise standards and enforce codes. 5. Do you consider that the existing rules are sufficient? If not how should they be changed? With members of parliament, disclosure needs to give way to outlawing potential conflicts. Where lobbyists have been involved in actions in which MPs have committed an offence (e,g. through the receipt of inducements) surely there is an opportunity to use charges such as ‘conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office’ in respect of the lobbyist.. [1] See further paragraph 9 below. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 6. Do you think it is a good idea to have a code of conduct or guidance directly applicable to any individual or organisation that is lobbied? If so, what are the main elements that should be included in any code of conduct or guidance and how could it be enforced? The first issue is whether they are being lobbied directly. If so there is a need to record meetings and any direct communication for purposes of transparency. However, if the pressure of influence is being brought to bear through third parties, social media etc, the person being lobbied may not know who is doing the lobbying and who is being paid to advise. These cases where there is no direct contact would be very hard to regulate. 7. Is there a case for establishing an external regulator for lobbying or are existing oversight mechanisms sufficient? Would suggest that CSPL adopts this role rather than adding further bodies 8. Do you agree that some form of sanctioning is a necessity? What form could it take? Clearly breaches of parliamentary rules require sanction and lobbyists or anyone else aiding and abetting such breaches should be punished 9. Do you think an outcome which relies on individuals who are lobbied taking proactive personal responsibility for being transparent in dealings with lobbyists is desirable and feasible? Yes a. If not, what are the impediments stopping such a process? b. How could it be monitored properly without leading to an increase in bureaucracy? At the moment secret dealings only come to light through ‘media stings’. It needs to be clear that any lobbyist (or indeed any party) that conspires with a parliamentarian to breach rules should themselves be liable for prosecution. 10. What should an individual do to ensure that he/she is aware of the dangers of potential conflicts of interest? Perhaps there should be an opportunity for an MP to offer information to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for review if they are unclear as to potential conflicts 11. Would enhanced disclosure by individuals and organisations provide the pertinent information on who is lobbying whom and sufficient incentive for decision makers and legislators to be balanced in the views they seek? Would this taken together with the Freedom of Information regime ensure sufficient transparency and accountability to enable effective public scrutiny of lobbying? Done well – yes Ian Coldwell Managing Director, Pagoda PR UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED E24: Paul Flynn MP Lobbying is omnipresent in Parliament. It’s the lubricant that eases policy and decision-making at all levels in partial ways that subvert the public interest. MPs are stalked, badgered, hunted and nagged by vested interests with bottomless pockets. It’s an infestation that reaches all areas of parliamentary work. Apart from party conferences, approaches to persuade MPs rarely come directly from lobbyists. The processes are subtle and usually aim to be invisible. Constituents’ letters are crafted, select committee witnesses are trained and rehearsed, all party parliamentary groups are subverted and their reports written, lobbyists arrange foreign trips, surreptitiously. There was widespread support for David Cameron’s call for reform in March 2010. Nothing has improved since then. The evidence of several stings by the media proves the eagerness of parliamentarians in both houses to work with the lobbying industry. Four Lords agreed in a sting to legislate for cash. On the Dispatches programme a string of ex-ministers offered to prostitute their influence, time and contacts for money. The influence of endemic lobbying is growing. No new controls have been introduced and there is new permissiveness. Adviser on Ministerial Interests The role of the Adviser on Ministerial Interests has been downgraded with the resignation of Sir Philip Mawer. He was replaced by Sir Alex Allan, an individual whose appointment was unanimously opposed by the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC). There was no legitimate inquiry into the Fox-Werritty affair even though it was the most egregious example of the potential power of lobbying to subvert Government policy. The introduction of the office of Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests was a major advance in the scrutiny of Ministers and a bulwark against unaccountable lobbying. The previous government introduced this reform. The Adviser, Sir Philip Mawer, investigated one Minister Shahid Malik. This was done entirely independently of the Prime Minister and the civil service. Sir Philip Mawer told PASC he believed he should have been called to investigate the case of Liam Fox MP and Adam Werritty. He said he disagreed with the matter being decided by the Head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O’Donnell. The excuse offered was that Sir Gus could deal with the issue speedily. This was political expediency to avoid the embarrassment of a lingering scandal. Liam Fox’s resignation was a key factor. It was absolution by resignation. There was no thorough probe into the conduct of the former Defence Secretary and the very serious allegations that his adviser was sponsored by American interests. The need for a strong and independent examiner of alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code was a recurring concern for PASC in the 1997-2001, 2001-2005 and 2005-2010 Parliaments. The Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) recommended the establishment of a post of independent adviser on Ministers' interests in its 9th Report, published in 2003. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED A PASC report in May 2008 warned that it would be difficult to command public confidence in the role of independent adviser "if the Prime Minister can decide that prima facie breaches of the Code will not be investigated". PASC therefore called for the independent adviser to have the power to instigate his own investigations in its report Investigating the Conduct of Ministers. This Report also recommended greater distance between the independent adviser on Ministers' interests and the Cabinet Office, and called for the holder to be appointed through a transparent open competition and subject to a pre-appointment hearing by a parliamentary select committee. These conclusions were not accepted in the Government's response. The extent of the lobbying of a special adviser to Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt was a surprise. It included over 500 emails and persistent invitations from a lobbyist seeking to influence the decision on BSkyB.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill October 2010
    Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill October 2010 This paper provides a background briefing on the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill, which was presented to the UK Parliament by the Rt. Hon Nick Clegg MP, the Deputy Prime Minister, on 22 July 2010. The Bill includes two key provisions which both directly apply to Wales. It aims to provide for a referendum on a choice between First Past the Post (FPTP) and the Alternative Vote (AV) as the system for electing the House of Commons, and change the electoral system for the Commons to the Alternative Vote if the result of the referendum supports this. The Bill also aims to provide for a reduction in the number of seats in the House of Commons from 650 to 600 and to introduce more equally sized constituencies. The National Assembly for Wales is the democratically elected body that represents the interests of Wales and its people, makes laws for Wales and holds the Welsh Government to account. The Members’ Research Service is part of the National Assembly for Wales. We provide confidential and impartial research support to the Assembly’s scrutiny and legislation committees, and to all 60 individual Assembly Members and their staff. Members’ Research Service briefings are compiled for the benefit of Assembly Members and their support staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. We welcome comments on our briefings; please post or email to the addresses below. An electronic version of this paper can be found on the National Assembly’s website at: www.assemblywales.org/bus-assembly-publications-research.htm Further hard copies of this paper can be obtained from: Members’ Research Service National Assembly for Wales Cardiff Bay CF99 1NA Email: [email protected] © National Assembly for Wales Commission Copyright 2010 The text of this document may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading or derogatory context.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution Unit Monitor 63 / June 2016
    1 Constitution Unit Monitor 63 / June 2016 In addition, important questions relate to the referendum The EU referendum: process itself. Democracy requires that referendums be conducted fairly, but the rules surrounding referendums in a fair process? the UK remain deeply contested. As reported in Monitor 61 (page 12) and 62 (page 11), the legislation enabling the The forthcoming referendum on whether the UK referendum passed through parliament last year amidst should remain a member of the European Union or leave much controversy and only after multiple government – to be held on 23 June – has raised many important concessions. Since David Cameron announced the date constitutional questions. of the vote on 20 February, five important aspects of referendum conduct have received particular attention. In part, these concern the implications that a vote for Brexit would have for the constitution and the First, in line with the Prime Minister’s announcement distribution of power in the UK and the EU. As reported in January, ministers have been allowed to campaign elsewhere in this edition of Monitor, these issues have against the government’s position of supporting a been addressed in a series of Constitution Unit seminars vote to remain in the EU. Five full members of cabinet and briefing papers in recent weeks (see page 14). The have done so (one of whom – Iain Duncan Smith – has briefing papers, as well as videos of the seminars, are subsequently resigned), as have a number of junior available online. The process of Brexit has also been ministers. This is only the third time that ministers examined in detail on the Constitution Unit blog by from the same party have been allowed to disagree so Alan Renwick.
    [Show full text]
  • West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority
    WEST YORKSHIRE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY MEETING TO BE HELD ON FRIDAY 16 DECEMBER 2011 AT 10.30 A.M. IN THE TRAINING AND CONFERENCE SUITE, BIRKENSHAW AGENDA 1. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS 2. ADMISSION OF THE PUBLIC The Committee is asked to consider whether, by resolution, to exclude the public from the meeting during the items of business marked with an ‘E’ reference, because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information. 3. URGENT ITEMS To determine whether there are any additional items of business which, by reason of special circumstances, the Chair believes should be considered at the meeting. 4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To consider any Declaration of Interest in relation to any item of business on the agenda. 5. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING HELD ON 9 SEPTEMBER 2011 (pp 3 - 8) (Enclosed) 6. MINUTES OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AT A MEETING HELD ON 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 (pp 9 - 11) (Enclosed) 7. MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AT A MEETING HELD ON 31 OCTOBER 2011 (pp 12 - 14) (Enclosed) 8. MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY SAFETY COMMITTEE AT A MEETING HELD ON 4 NOVEMBER 2011 (pp 15 - 21) (Enclosed) 9. MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE AT A MEETING HELD ON 11 NOVEMBER 2011 (pp 22 - 24) (Enclosed) 10. MINUTES OF THE FINANCE AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE AT A MEETING HELD ON 18 NOVEMBER 2011 (pp 25 - 28) (Enclosed) 11. LOCAL GOVERNMENT GROUP MINUTES (pp 29 - 51) a) Fire Commission - 14 October 2011 (p 29) b) Safer and Stronger Communities Programme Board - 13 September 2011 (p 36) c) Fire Services Management Committee - 16 September 2011 (p 45) - 17 November 2011 (Enclosed where available) 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Alan Rusbridger the Guardian, Friday 20 December 2013 07.50 AEST
    Alan Rusbridger The Guardian, Friday 20 December 2013 07.50 AEST Jump to comments (378) What a relief. It is, after all, possible to discuss the operations of modern intelligence agencies without having to prove one's patriotism, be turned over by the police, summoned by politicians or visited by state- employed technicians with instructions to smash up one's computers. The 300-page report into the Guardian's revelations about the US National Security Agency commissioned by President Obama and published this week is wide-ranging, informed and thoughtful. It leaps beyond the timid privacy-versus-national security platitudes which have stifled so much of the debate in the UK. It doesn't blame journalism for dragging the subject into the open: it celebrates it. The five authors of the report are not hand-wringing liberals. They number one former CIA deputy director; a counter-terrorism adviser to George W Bush and his father; two former White House advisers; and a former dean of the Chicago law school. Not what the British prime minister would call "airy-fairy lah-di-dah" types. Six months ago the British cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, was in the Guardian's London office telling us there had been "enough" debate on the matter of what intelligence agencies got up to. But here are Obama's experts revelling in the debate; exploring the tensions between privacy and national security, yes – but going much further, discussing cryptology; civil liberties; the right of citizens and governments to be informed; relationships with other countries; and the potential damage that unconstrained espionage can cause to trade, commerce and the digital economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic UN Vote to Ban Nuclear Weapons
    Yorkshire CND Issue 90 Action for Peace Winter 2016/7 he Yorkshire CND Newsletter Historic UN Vote to Ban Nuclear Weapons It was relatively easy to miss in the UK press, the The main body of opposition to the proposal came from exciting news that on 27 October, the UN General Russia, NATO states, and those heavily inluenced by Assembly's Disarmament and Security Committee voted NATO states. While India and Pakistan abstained, North for negotiations in 2017 on a treaty to prohibit nuclear Korea voted for the ban treaty negotiations, highlighting weapons. This clearly has momentous consequences very clearly, the countries that pose the greatest nuclear for Trident renewal, and ofers the best hope for threat to the world! disarmament campaigners for many years. The following analysis from an article by Rebecca 123 UN Member states (a huge majority) voted to Johnson of ICANuk underlines the importance of this convene a multilateral UN conference in 2017 "to vote. negotiate a legally binding treaty to prohibit nuclear ‘Building on the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), weapons, leading towards their total elimination". the new multilateral treaty will for the irst time provide a comprehensive approach to prohibiting activities such as the use, deployment, production, transporting, stockpiling and inancing of nuclear weapons. It will also extend the NPT's nuclear disarmament obligation by creating a clear, unequivocal legal obligation to eliminate existing arsenals that will apply to non-NPT as well as all NPT states. If the UN First Committee vote is conirmed by the UN General Assembly in December, as is likely, the negotiations will go ahead, with sessions timetabled for March, June and July 2017 in New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Welsh Affairs Committee Oral Evidence: One-Off Session on a Welsh Freeport and Progress in Establishing Inland Post-Brexit Facilities, HC 480
    Welsh Affairs Committee Oral evidence: One-off session on a Welsh freeport and progress in establishing inland post-Brexit facilities, HC 480 Thursday 8 July 2021 Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 8 July 2021. Watch the meeting Members present: Stephen Crabb (Chair); Simon Baynes; Virginia Crosbie; Geraint Davies; Ben Lake; Dr Jamie Wallis. Questions 1 - 83 Witnesses I: Ian Davies, Head of UK Port Authorities, Stena Line. II: Vaughan Gething MS, Minister for the Economy; and Rebecca Evans MS, Minister for Finance and Local Government, Welsh Government. III: Rt Hon Simon Hart MP, Secretary of State for Wales; David T C Davies MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales; Zamila Bunglawala, Director - International Education Directorate, Department for Education; and Stephen Webb, Director of Infrastructure, Border and Protocol Delivery Group, Cabinet Office. Examination of Witness Witness: Ian Davies. Q1 Chair: Good morning. Welcome to this morning’s session of the Welsh Affairs Committee looking at infrastructure issues in Wales, particularly relating to port infrastructure. We have three panels this morning. We are delighted that we are joined for our first panel by Ian Davies who is head of UK port authorities for Stena. Ian, good morning. We are grateful for the time you are giving us. We always find the evidence and information that you give us very helpful. I will start the questions this morning, Mr Davies, and ask about the current state of play on trade across the Irish Sea from Welsh ports into the Republic of Ireland. When you appeared before us previously, we had seen a marked reduction in volumes of trade following the end of the Brexit transition period.
    [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]
  • Economics Annual Review 2018-2019
    ECONOMICS REVIEW 2018/19 CELEBRATING FIRST EXCELLENCE AT YEAR LSE ECONOMICS CHALLENGE Faculty Interviews ALUMNI NEW PANEL APPOINTMENTS & VISITORS RESEARCH CENTRE BRIEFINGS 1 CONTENTS 2 OUR STUDENTS 3 OUR FACULTY 4 RESEARCH UPDATES 5 OUR ALUMNI 2 WELCOME TO THE 2018/19 EDITION OF THE ECONOMICS ANNUAL REVIEW This has been my first year as Head of the outstanding contributions to macroeconomics and Department of Economics and I am proud finance) and received a BA Global Professorship, will and honoured to be at the helm of such a be a Professor of Economics. John will be a School distinguished department. The Department Professor and Ronald Coase Chair in Economics. remains world-leading in education and research, Our research prowess was particularly visible in the May 2019 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, and many efforts are underway to make further one of the top journals in the profession: the first four improvements. papers out of ten in that issue are co-authored by current colleagues in the Department and two more by We continue to attract an extremely talented pool of our former PhD students Dave Donaldson and Rocco students from a large number of applicants to all our Macchiavello. Rocco is now in the LSE Department programmes and to place our students in the most of Management, as is Noam Yuchtman, who published sought-after jobs. This year, our newly-minted PhD another paper in the same issue. This highlights how student Clare Balboni made us particularly proud by the strength of economics is growing throughout LSE, landing a job as Assistant Professor at MIT, one of the reinforcing our links to other departments as a result.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Polling
    The Politics of Polling everyday practices of political opinion polling Robin Hughes A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Politics Faculty of Social Sciences The University of Sheffield March 2020 2 3 Abstract Public opinion has long been held as an important concept in politics. Consequently, its measurement, particularly through public opinion polls, is valuable both as a point of democratic principle and of political practicality. Whilst a rich literature exists on opinion polls and opinion data is regularly used for a variety of analyses, there is little available information on the everyday, human activities which drive the production of polling. In this thesis, I present a different view of political polling by engaging with polls at the site of their production and asking the question: what are the everyday practices of political public opinion polling, and what is their significance in understanding political polls? In answering this question, I use an ethnographic approach to provide a narrative account of qualitative data on political polling. This thesis is an exploratory study. It produces empirical data on the practices of polling, and theoretical analyses of how this data can further inform our understandings of political polls. Throughout the thesis, I put forward the argument that the human agency of pollsters is an important, but often overlooked facet of understanding political polls. Significant individual decisions are found to be commonplace in everyday practice, and affect the wording, the type, and the nature of available polls. By providing an account of everyday practices, I am able to demonstrate the ways in which this influence on polling output manifests.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of Oakwood Library
    From Oak Leaves, Part 5, Christmas 2004 - published by Oakwood and District Historical Society [ODHS] A BRIEF HISTORY OF OAKWOOD LIBRARY. © By Barbara Worthington Oakwood Library must be one of the most visited buildings in Oakwood, displaying many forms of knowledge and enjoyment. This is its function today but it has had many lives. In earlier times, a field at the corner of Oakwood Lane (then called Horseshoe Lane) and Wetherby Road was part of the estate belonging to the Nicholson family who owned Roundhay Park. When the Roundhay Estate was broken up into lots and sold off after the death of Mrs Nicholson Nicholson in 1871, it was advertised as Lot 11, just over three acres of arable land, part of 'Great Quarry Close' and described as a 'Valuable Corner Building Site'. It was sold for £1,010 to Samuel Smith, the owner of Meanwood Tanneries. In the closing years of the century, shortly after the development of the Oakwood Parade of shops, three brothers, builders William Akeroyd Fenton and James and Joe Fenton, bought the former Lot 11 site. In January 1898, they sold the corner house they were building to Benjamin Robinson for £1,650 and he named it 'Oak Lodge'. Benjamin Robinson did not live long after this. He died in 1902 after a long illness. His Robinson surname will be familiar to many residents of Leeds as being associated with that of Owen Robinson, the jewellers. Benjamin Robinson started in business as a pawnbroker on York Road. Eventually he owned four shops, two on York Road, one on Pontefract Lane and the fourth on Cross Green Lane.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of the 27Th Plenary Session, October 2003
    BRITISH-IRISH INTER- PARLIAMENTARY BODY COMHLACHT IDIR- PHARLAIMINTEACH NA BREATAINE AGUS NA hÉIREANN _________________________ TWENTY-SEVENTH PLENARY CONFERENCE 20 and 21 OCTOBER 2003 Hanbury Manor Hotel & Country Club, Ware, Hertfordshire _______________________ OFFICIAL REPORT (Final Revised Edition) (Produced by the British-Irish Parliamentary Reporting Association) Any queries should be sent to: The Editor The British-Irish Parliamentary Reporting Association Room 248 Parliament Buildings Stormont Belfast BT4 3XX Tel: 028 90521135 e-mail [email protected] IN ATTENDANCE Co-Chairmen Mr Brendan Smith TD Mr David Winnick MP Members and Associate Members Mr Harry Barnes MP Mr Séamus Kirk TD Senator Paul Bradford Senator Terry Le Sueur Mr Johnny Brady TD Dr Dai Lloyd AM Rt Hon the Lord Brooke Rt Hon Andrew Mackay MP of Sutton Mandeville CH Mr Andrew Mackinlay MP Mr Alistair Carmichael MP Dr John Marek AM Senator Paul Coughlan Mr Michael Mates MP Dr Jerry Cowley TD Rt Hon Sir Brian Mawhinney MP Mr Seymour Crawford TD Mr Kevin McNamara MP Dr Jimmy Devins TD Mr David Melding AM The Lord Dubs Senator Paschal Mooney Ms Helen Eadie MSP Mr Arthur Morgan TD Mr John Ellis TD Mr Alasdair Morrison MSP Mr Jeff Ennis MP Senator Francie O’Brien Ms Margaret Ewing MSP Mr William O’Brien MP Mr Paul Flynn MP Mr Donald J Gelling CBE MLC Ms Liz O’Donnell TD Mr Mike German AM Mr Ned O’Keeffe TD Mr Jim Glennon TD Mr Jim O’Keeffe TD The Lord Glentoran CBE DL Senator Ann Ormonde Mr Dominic Grieve MP Mr Séamus Pattison TD Mr John Griffiths AM Senator
    [Show full text]
  • Download (9MB)
    A University of Sussex PhD thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details 2018 Behavioural Models for Identifying Authenticity in the Twitter Feeds of UK Members of Parliament A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF UK MPS’ TWEETS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2012; A LONGITUDINAL STUDY MARK MARGARETTEN Mark Stuart Margaretten Submitted for the degree of Doctor of PhilosoPhy at the University of Sussex June 2018 1 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 1 DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... 6 TABLES ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]