Previous Section Index Home Page

6 Nov 2006 : Column 588

By contrast, what seems to be more important to the Government—the Minister has been honest enough to admit this at the Dispatch Box, as he has before—is the ownership of the process itself. They freely concede that the scheme is not independent. As the Minister clarified, the amendment in lieu would not introduce the concept of independence in any way. The Minister argues that, if trusts have ownership, they will somehow be more likely to bring about a cultural shift in openness and transparency. Most people will find that entirely contradictory. The Government are trying to put the cart before the horse. NHS ownership of the scheme might be appropriate for a health system that is characterised by openness and transparency, but it will not in itself get us to that point, as history has shown.

As we have heard, the Government wish to introduce elements of independence, rather than to embrace independence itself. It might be worth while for the House to scrutinise quickly those elements of independence. The Government suggest that legal advice will be available prior to any offer. We are happy with the concept of legal advice being made available at the time of an offer because legal rights would be considered at that point, but giving legal advice prior to an offer will not make the investigation of the facts independent. Such legal advice will introduce adversarial elements, even though legal rights are not being determined. It will cause a replication of the cost and complexity of litigation.

The Government also argue that the scheme will make available expert advice, but such advice should be independent anyway. We do not need a scheme to make medical expert advice independent. Meanwhile, it is not clear whether medical reports will consider fact, fault, causation and condition, or whether they will be disclosed.

The Government suggest that the fact that patients will be able to complain to the ombudsman is another important aspect of independence. However, that applies to complaints of maladministration, rather than substantive investigations of the facts. The Government also point out that, if patients are not happy with the findings of the scheme, the courts will be available. Perversely, that shows the failure of a scheme that purports to provide a genuine alternative to litigation. Advancing such an argument almost defeats the purpose of the scheme itself.

Unless an investigation of the facts has a badge of independence to reassure patients, the scheme will add nothing whatsoever to what can already happen. As we have mentioned, NHS trusts already have the ability to investigate themselves and the NHSLA has the power to make an assessment of liability and, when appropriate, offer compensation. I put it to the Minister that, unless the Government concede on independence—I do not expect that they will—the Bill will be a wasted opportunity in many respects.

I wish to touch briefly on separation, because I think that it is relevant to independence. The scheme must be a two-stage process with a strict separation between the functions of fact-finding and fault-finding. An investigation of what happened should not be contaminated by considerations of who was to blame. There is ample legal authority for the rationale of such separation—the principle behind the Inquiries Act 2005 and the coroners’ courts—so it is happening throughout the country.

6 Nov 2006 : Column 589

There is also ample case law of the Court of Appeal that recognises the rationale for the separation of fact-finding from determination of legal liability. We envisage a wide-ranging inquiry that may consider matters of medical professional practice, but does not consider issues of legal liability. That limitation is appropriate because the inquiry is not a court: legal rights are not being defended or asserted.

4.15 pm

The Government appear to concede that there is, in practice, a two-stage process in which fact-finding and fault-finding are separate. In Standing Committee, the Minister said:

The Secretary of State made a similar point in this Chamber on Second Reading.

Does the Minister stand by those remarks? Will he guarantee that there will be a separation of functions between the trust investigating what happened and the NHSLA considering issues of liability? Will he confirm that the body responsible for defending the NHS against claims—the NHSLA—will have no role in determining the facts of the case? I invite the Minister to respond now to those questions.

Andy Burnham: I am happy to do so. I do indeed stand by what I said in Committee, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has in mind a more rigid separation than we do. As I described in my opening remarks, we believe that there will be discussion between the scheme authority and the local trust on the quality of the report and of the investigation, on whether there are gaps and on whether further information needs to be provided. I have in mind a more iterative process and more exchange of information between the bodies. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to confirm that it is principally the trust’s responsibility to carry out the investigation and the scheme authority’s role to advise on liability and quantum, I am happy to do so.

Mr. Baron: I thank the Minister for that clarification. For the record, I am not suggesting a rigid structure—far from it. All I am suggesting is that the function of fact-finding should be confined to the trust investigating at the fact-finding stage. That should not prevent correspondence, liaison and communication between the NHSLA and the trust, as long as the NHSLA plays no part in determining the facts of the case. It must be absolutely clear that the trust determines the facts. Can the Minister confirm that?

Andy Burnham: Yes, I can. It will be the trust’s responsibility to carry out the investigation locally.

Mr. Baron: In the light of the Government amendment in lieu, will the Minister explain why he will not allow that separation to be spelled out on the face of the Bill?

Andy Burnham: It is because we have in mind a unified, coherent scheme wherein trusts work closely with the scheme authority to ensure both that thorough
6 Nov 2006 : Column 590
and detailed investigation reports are produced and that, based on those reports, correct offers of settlement are made. We have in mind a single scheme, not a multiplicity of schemes once the investigation stage is complete, as the hon. Gentleman seems to envisage. We propose a coherent whole so that we might avoid the need for the legal process and thereby improve the patient experience and reduce the cost to the system as a whole.

Mr. Baron: I suggest to the Minister that his remarks are somewhat contradictory. He has made it clear at the Dispatch Box that he accepts that the fact-finding stage will remain just that—a process to determine the facts—and it will then be up to the NHSLA to assess liability. I therefore cannot understand why that clear separation of the two functions cannot be spelled out on the face of the Bill.

I ask the Minister to turn his attention to the investigation reports. Clarity about what the report covers is important. Will the report made available to the patient cover only the fact-finding stage, or will it include the fault-finding stage as well? That is important. Any offer will, presumably, be made on a without prejudice basis—in other words, it cannot imply liability—but the reports will not ordinarily be disclosable if they include the fault-finding stage, because they might imply liability. The reports should therefore be restricted to the fact-finding stage only; otherwise, the scheme risks being functionally incoherent. Will the Minister clarify that point for the House?

Andy Burnham: The intention is to make the report available to the patient at the point of an offer being made. I stress that it is the trust’s report—the local investigation carried out by the trust—that will be made available. The intention is that that would be made available simultaneously with an offer being made, so the two documents would be read together by the patient.

Mr. Baron: I take it from that response—if I am wrong, I invite the Minister to correct me—that the report would be restricted to the fact-finding stage and the investigation undertaken by the trust.

Andy Burnham: I clarify again that the report would be the product of the local investigation carried out by the trust. I would encourage trusts to go further than simply laying out the facts. If they wanted to make an apology to the patient at that stage or explain what process changes have been made to prevent the same thing from happening again, it would be right and proper for them to do that. I would encourage them to do so, rather than delivering a mechanistic report dealing solely with the facts of the case.

Mr. Baron: I am happy to agree with the Minister. I do not think we have ever disagreed on that point. The trust’s role is also to give an explanation and an apology, if appropriate. I thank the Minister for clarifying that the report will cover the investigation undertaken by the trust into the facts. That is extremely important.

I know that others wish to speak, so I shall touch only briefly on one or two related issues. We all agree that legal advice should be available at the point when
6 Nov 2006 : Column 591
an offer of compensation or settlement is made, since legal rights may be determined if they are waived as part of a compromise agreement. However, in an attempt to bolster the independence and credibility of their scheme, the Government have proposed that free legal advice should be made available before legal rights are determined.

That, in our view, will merely encourage confusion between fact-finding and fault-finding within the scheme, for it is the job of lawyers to assert or defend legal rights. Our concern is that accusations of blame will contaminate the fact-finding process. That will lead, in contrast to what the Minister suggests, to a more closed and defensive culture among NHS staff. As a result, important lessons may not be learned. Such an approach contradicts the Secretary of State’s opinion on Second Reading that lawyers should be kept out of the investigation.

In our view, lawyers are not required during the fact-finding investigation, since legal rights are not being asserted or defended. Much has been made of the contribution of so-called specialist lawyers. The Minister referred to

Policy and decision making must be based on evidence. I am not aware of evidence of better success rates of specialist lawyers.

The evidence that I have seen tends to show that their success is comparable to non-specialists. Action against Medical Accidents—AvMA—makes the following statement in its promotional literature:

I have asked AvMA to produce the evidence, which it has been unable to do. It should make it clear in its promotional literature that there is no evidence to substantiate its claims. I believe it will eventually be required to do that. That is important, because if the Government seek to bolster the independence and credibility of the scheme by involving specialist lawyers, the performance of such lawyers must be measurable and stand up to independent scrutiny.

Mr. Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): I declare an interest as a trustee of AvMA. In the hon. Gentleman’s view, do non-specialists with no particular knowledge or expertise in a subject have knowledge and expertise as good as people with many years of in-depth knowledge and expertise in that subject, and are they therefore likely to be as successful?

Mr. Baron: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman asks that question as a trustee of AvMA. However, whenever we have asked AvMA to provide evidence to substantiate that claim, it has been unable to so; eventually, it will have to address that point.

We share and support the Government’s good intentions as regards providing a genuine alternative to litigation, but the issue of independence is of such crucial importance that their lordships were right to send the Bill back for further consideration. Independence will make the scheme more credible in
6 Nov 2006 : Column 592
the eyes of the patient and will promote a culture of greater openness in the NHS. I therefore invite the Minister, even at this late stage, to agree with the Lords about the importance of independence and the separation of fact-finding and fault-finding; I think that he has done so on the latter. If he does not agree with the concept of independence, patients will be the poorer for it, and we will therefore have no alternative but to ask the House to oppose the Government’s amendment.

Sandra Gidley (Romsey) (LD): I support the comments made by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), who has gone into the issues in some depth. It is a good job that I did not prepare such a lengthy and in-depth speech, because I would not have had time to deliver it.

There is broad agreement on the general principles of the Bill, which has been welcomed in all parts of the House. It is right and proper that patients are encouraged to complain and that trusts are engaged proactively in that. However, throughout the Bill’s passage, Liberal Democrat Members have tried hard to establish two clear principles: a clear separation between fact-finding and fault-finding, and the independence of the process. It has become gradually more apparent that the Government intend that investigations should be thorough and that all the facts should be established before an inquiry is handed over to the next stage. We would prefer a slightly more rigid separation, but we can broadly agree that everything is moving in pretty much the right direction. However, there remains a problem with the NHS Litigation Authority taking over at that stage, because its job is, in effect, to protect the NHS from over-large claims and often to challenge such claims. Rightly, part of its remit is to protect the public purse, but that seems counterintuitive as regards the stated aim of the Bill, which is to be on the side of the patient. Many patient groups perceive the NHSLA to be on the side not of the patient but of the NHS. However, this is not the place to rehearse those arguments at length.

In the time that I have left, I want to concentrate on the outstanding point of difference—independence. During the Bill’s passage, there have been numerous attempts to introduce different mechanisms for dealing with that problem that the Minister could accept. He has been generous in other parts of the Bill, so I hope that he will forgive me for saying that he seems to be bogged down in those mechanisms and has found fault with each idea without recognising the broad principle. When we saw the Government’s amendment, our first thought was that it could represent a concession whereby the Government could introduce independence if they so wished, but sadly that has proved not to be the case.

If the Minister will not listen to Opposition Members on this matter, perhaps he will be more persuaded by others. When the Bill was introduced, the Patients Association said:

Dr. Gerard Panting of the Medical Protection Society made a slightly different point when he said that, for the NHS redress scheme to command the confidence
6 Nov 2006 : Column 593
both of the public and of health care professionals, it is important that independent advice be available. Most of the patient groups that I have spoken to have expressed concern that an in-trust investigation would not be independent.

4.30 pm

People with real expertise have been involved with this Bill in the other place, including my noble Friend Baroness Neuberger, who said:

Clearly that is something that we want to avoid. I believe that the Minister is well intentioned, but I hope that he will learn from the experience of others that this provision is potentially flawed.

An independent overseer would be in a better position to identify the organisational dysfunctions that we must acknowledge occur in some organisations. I am pleased that the Minister has said that he will review the issue. Will he describe the time scale involved? Will he also consider introducing either a pilot scheme or enabling legislation so that trusts may choose whether to have an independent overseer? Alternatively, there could be a few experimental areas in which independence is tried out, so that when the system is reviewed, we can make a full comparison to determine which method works best in the interests of patients.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 187.
Division No. 339]
[4.32 pm


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Anderson, Janet
Armstrong, rh Hilary
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Baird, Vera
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr. Joe
Berry, Roger
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Blunkett, rh Mr. David
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Bradshaw, Mr. Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burgon, Colin
Burnham, Andy
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Byrne, Mr. Liam
Caborn, rh Mr. Richard
Cairns, David

Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie
Caton, Mr. Martin
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Challen, Colin
Chapman, Ben
Chaytor, Mr. David
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clelland, Mr. David
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, Mr. David
Creagh, Mary
Cruddas, Jon
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Denham, rh Mr. John
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dobbin, Jim
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Drew, Mr. David
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Ennis, Jeff
Etherington, Bill
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Gibson, Dr. Ian
Gilroy, Linda
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Grogan, Mr. John
Gwynne, Andrew
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. David
Hamilton, Mr. Fabian
Hanson, Mr. David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr. Tom
Healey, John
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Howells, Dr. Kim
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Hughes, rh Beverley
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hutton, rh Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Ingram, rh Mr. Adam
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keen, Ann
Kelly, rh Ruth
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Kennedy, rh Jane
Khabra, Mr. Piara S.
Khan, Mr. Sadiq
Kidney, Mr. David
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Lammy, Mr. David
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Lewis, Mr. Ivan
Linton, Martin
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew
MacShane, rh Mr. Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Robert
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCafferty, Chris
McCarthy, Kerry
McCartney, rh Mr. Ian
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, John
McFadden, Mr. Pat
McFall, rh John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Meacher, rh Mr. Michael
Merron, Gillian
Michael, rh Alun
Milburn, rh Mr. Alan

Miliband, rh David
Miliband, Edward
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Moran, Margaret
Morgan, Julie
Morley, Mr. Elliot
Mountford, Kali
Mudie, Mr. George
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Munn, Meg
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Norris, Dan
O'Brien, Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Olner, Mr. Bill
Osborne, Sandra
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pope, Mr. Greg
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Primarolo, rh Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Purnell, James
Rammell, Bill
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Andy
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Reid, rh John
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Roy, Mr. Frank
Ruane, Chris
Russell, Christine
Ryan, Joan
Salter, Martin
Seabeck, Alison
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Smith, Angela E. (Basildon)
Smith, rh Jacqui
Smith, John
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Straw, rh Mr. Jack
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry
Tami, Mark
Taylor, Ms Dari
Taylor, David
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Timms, rh Mr. Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Todd, Mr. Mark
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Ussher, Kitty
Vaz, rh Keith
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Ward, Claire
Wareing, Mr. Robert N.
Watson, Mr. Tom
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, Malcolm
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Wills, Mr. Michael
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodward, Mr. Shaun
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Wyatt, Derek
Tellers for the Ayes:

Steve McCabe and
Mr. Dave Watts

Ainsworth, Mr. Peter
Amess, Mr. David
Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James
Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Tony
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr. John
Beith, rh Mr. Alan
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Bone, Mr. Peter
Bottomley, Peter
Brady, Mr. Graham
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr. Jeremy
Browning, Angela
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Butterfill, Sir John
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Clappison, Mr. James
Clark, Greg
Clarke, rh Mr. Kenneth
Clegg, Mr. Nick
Conway, Derek
Cormack, Sir Patrick

Crabb, Mr. Stephen
Curry, rh Mr. David
Davey, Mr. Edward
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice and Howden)
Dorries, Mrs. Nadine
Duncan, Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr. Iain
Dunne, Mr. Philip
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Evans, Mr. Nigel
Evennett, Mr. David
Fallon, Mr. Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mr. Mark
Foster, Mr. Don
Francois, Mr. Mark
Fraser, Mr. Christopher
Gale, Mr. Roger
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Gauke, Mr. David
Gidley, Sandra
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Goodwill, Mr. Robert
Gove, Michael
Gray, Mr. James
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Grieve, Mr. Dominic
Hammond, Mr. Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Harvey, Nick
Hayes, Mr. John
Heald, Mr. Oliver
Heath, Mr. David
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, Nick
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Hogg, rh Mr. Douglas
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holmes, Paul
Horam, Mr. John
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, David
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Hughes, Simon
Huhne, Chris
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Hurd, Mr. Nick
Jack, rh Mr. Michael
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
Johnson, Mr. Boris
Jones, Mr. David
Kawczynski, Daniel
Keetch, Mr. Paul
Kennedy, rh Mr. Charles
Kramer, Susan
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Lamb, Norman
Leech, Mr. John
Leigh, Mr. Edward
Letwin, rh Mr. Oliver
Lewis, Dr. Julian
Lidington, Mr. David
Lilley, rh Mr. Peter
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Loughton, Tim
Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew
Main, Anne
Maples, Mr. John
Maude, rh Mr. Francis
May, rh Mrs. Theresa
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Mercer, Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Milton, Anne
Moore, Mr. Michael
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Mulholland, Greg
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr. Brooks
Oaten, Mr. Mark
Osborne, Mr. George
Ottaway, Richard
Paterson, Mr. Owen
Pelling, Mr. Andrew
Penrose, John
Price, Adam
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, Dr. John
Randall, Mr. John
Rennie, Willie
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Rogerson, Mr. Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rowen, Paul
Ruffley, Mr. David
Russell, Bob
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shepherd, Mr. Richard
Simpson, Mr. Keith
Smith, Sir Robert
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Spink, Bob
Spring, Mr. Richard
Stanley, rh Sir John
Streeter, Mr. Gary
Stuart, Mr. Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, Mr. Hugo
Syms, Mr. Robert
Taylor, Matthew
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Tyrie, Mr. Andrew
Vaizey, Mr. Edward
Vara, Mr. Shailesh
Viggers, Peter
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Walker, Mr. Charles
Waterson, Mr. Nigel
Watkinson, Angela
Webb, Steve

Whittingdale, Mr. John
Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, Mr. David
Williams, Mr. Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willis, Mr. Phil
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Winterton, Sir Nicholas
Wright, Jeremy
Young, rh Sir George
Younger-Ross, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Crispin Blunt and
Michael Fabricant
Question accordingly agreed to.
Next Section Index Home Page