| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
“In principle London Councils believes that increased local accountability can be better achieved by broadening the scope of existing scrutiny mechanisms”.
Apparently, that view was ignored; yet again, top-down management from the Government.
I shall draw my comments to a close. Ministers must realise that the electorate’s concern right now is not just about the quality of government, and its quantity—of course there is too much of that; a plethora of unaccountable regional government tiers has been set up. There is also concern about the quality of our democracy.
Mr. David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con): My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. One of the things I have tried to get the Leader of the House to do is to hold an annual debate on London, just as we have a debate on Wales on St. David’s day. Would that not be another way for us to raise London issues and put our concerns on record, rather than having the costs and administration of a new Committee?
Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is quite right. That would be yet another option for ensuring that London MPs could hold to account people who are taking decisions that affect Londoners, but of course it is probably too good an idea to be considered by the Government because they are so wedded to their costly, duplicative and interfering Regional Select Committee approach that they seem hell-bent on taking it no matter how much it costs and how ineffective it will be.
Mr. Chope: I feel entitled to participate in the debate because I was born in Putney and was a great supporter of the abolition of the Greater London council. Does my hon. Friend think that underlying the motion is the Government’s state of denial, because they were defeated in the recent London mayoral election?
Justine Greening: I did not want to make the debate excessively political because I think that at heart the approach is structurally wrong for accountability whichever Mayor and whichever Government are in power. However, my hon. Friend is right to touch on that point. What concerns me about the proposals is that they feel like the politicisation of Select Committees, which have always been independent of the Executive. That has always been their biggest strength.
It feels to me as though the Leader of the House, like so many of her Cabinet colleagues, is merely shifting the deckchairs on the Labour Government Titanic. The biggest danger is that the proposals could undermine the effectiveness of our local devolution in London, through the Mayor and the London assembly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, Londoners had their say in the mayoral election last year. Now, like the rest of the country, we want to have our say about the accountability gap, which is real, but a general election will fill that gap, not a London Regional Select Committee. We have elected our Mayor, now we want the chance to elect new MPs and a Prime Minister who actually has a real mandate.
1.34 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I certainly welcome the proposals, which are long overdue. We should have considered them six months ago when the other Regional Select Committees were being proposed. It is a regrettable oversight that the London Committee was not proposed at the time, and I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for listening to the representations made by my hon. Friends and me that London should be included in the programme of Regional Committees.
The Opposition put a false dichotomy. From my point of view, the more we scrutinise the activities of the Government and Government bodies, the better. I see no objection to a London Question Time; it is a good idea. I see no objection to an annual debate on London; that is a good idea, too. Indeed, when I was first elected, we used to have an annual debate on policing in London—usually on a Friday morning, but it was welcome nevertheless. However, there is no reason why, having accepted and indeed agreed with those propositions, we should not also have a Select Committee for London, because there is no doubt that there is a significant accountability gap for various bodies for which the Government are responsible.
Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): Can the hon. Gentleman envisage the London Select Committee, were it to be in place, considering a matter that had been devolved to the London assembly and reaching a different conclusion from the assembly? There would thus be two separate bodies with different conclusions about how a policy should be set, or how a matter should be resolved. What would be the pecking order between the London Select Committee and the London assembly?
Mr. Dismore: It would be most unlikely that the Select Committee would want to look at something that was entirely devolved to the London assembly, although we might find that there were areas of joint or overlapping responsibility. Of course, it is possible to come to a different conclusion, but that does not necessarily mean that different conclusions should not be reached or considered. Think-tanks in the outside world come to different conclusions. There is nothing wrong with that; it helps to inform debate and, ultimately, leads to better decision making when different points of view are expressed after detailed consideration.
The hon. Lady is right; there may be different conclusions. For example, there are significant overlapping responsibilities on housing policy. There are the Mayor’s responsibilities. He has just published his draft housing strategy, with which I profoundly disagree, signally on the abolition of targets for affordable homes. The boroughs have housing policies, some of which are in conflict with the Mayor because the boroughs are trying to negotiate different numbers. There is the Government’s overarching strategy to try to provide decent, affordable homes for the people of London. The role of the Homes and Communities Agency, a central Government body, is vital in that operation. Indeed, a round of negotiations is going on between my borough and the HCA to try to get the money needed to support some of the regeneration schemes, which have run into the sand for reasons that I will not go into now. It would be helpful if a London Select Committee could call Mr. Bob
Kerslake to discuss the policies of his agency towards London. It has actually been very difficult for us to get hold of him to discuss some of the issues.
Earlier, I mentioned the NHS London consultation, which has just closed, on proposals for acute trauma and stroke services—if we can call it consultation, and I have been quite critical of it. The proposals were of major interest in each of our boroughs, which have advanced different positions. For example, there are proposals for four major trauma units. The fourth will be at either the Royal Free or St. Mary’s, and there are significant differences across London about which should be chosen. Indeed, some people argue whether four is the right number.
Similarly, in relation to stroke services, there is a strong argument about whether the eight places selected are the right ones for hyper-units and, again, whether eight is the right number. The best way of dealing with that issue would be to call Ruth Carnall and the other people at the top of NHS London who are involved to give evidence to a London Select Committee and answer those very detailed questions.
Mrs. Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con): The hon. Gentleman and I are as one on the importance of stroke services and major trauma centres, but he has not explained why a London Select Committee will be more effective in highlighting those issues than the Greater London assembly, which his Government created.
Mr. Dismore: Because the NHS is a central Government service—I would have thought that that answer was self-evident. The NHS is accountable to the House, like the Government, but it is only indirectly accountable to the GLA and the London assembly. Borough scrutiny committees will of course examine health issues, but only from the perspective of their individual borough. The hon. Lady will know that Barnet, which we represent, has formed a particular view, but that is very different from Hammersmith’s view. How can those differences of view be reconciled except through an overarching inquiry by a pan-London Select Committee of the House that scrutinises officials and holds them to account? Such a Committee will be able to call officials such as Ruth Carnall and the medical experts who have been giving opinions as part of the consultation. Indeed, they could be held to account for the appalling way in which the consultation has been conducted.
Mrs. Villiers: One advantage that the GLA would have over a London Select Committee when scrutinising such matters is that its members would have been elected by Londoners, whereas I understand that a London Select Committee could have members from all over the country.
Mr. Dismore: I hope that would be very unlikely. If the motion on membership of the Committee included a plethora of non-London Members, I for one would not vote for it, and I doubt that the hon. Lady would either. I, like her, have certainly been elected by Londoners.
Mrs. Lait:
May I dig a little deeper into the Select Committee’s role that the hon. Gentleman envisages? Following the ongoing consultation on stroke and trauma, is he suggesting that after the strategic health authority’s
board reaches a conclusion, it could be overruled by the Select Committee? In such circumstances, would the SHA have a role as the body that should make decisions about London health, or would it be subservient to the London Committee?
Mr. Dismore: The hon. Lady knows that that is not the constitutional position. Members of the House are not the Executive, but the legislature. In that context, London’s SHA is part of government and must be held to account for the decisions that it makes. It would not be for the Select Committee to overrule the SHA, but it would be able to express its views and opinions to influence the debate and the decision-making process. The ultimate decision would be taken by Health Ministers and the SHA, but it would be the job of London Members—collectively, through the Select Committee—to inform the debate.
The hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) talked about post office closures in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). I have no axe to grind because I was one of the rebels on post office closure, but it is important to bear it in mind that responsibility for post offices lay with Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Ministers at that time. The London Committee could have held BERR Ministers to account and discussed policies on post office closures with them, and then the Committee could have formed a view. That could not have been achieved in any other way except through the much wider debate on post office closures, which was very difficult to participate in because many Members wished to speak.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) talked about employment policy. We all accept that London’s economy is different from the rest of the country’s. London faces challenging economic circumstances and, in the light of what has happened in the City, the problems facing its labour market are completely different from those in other parts of the country. Neither the Treasury Committee nor the Work and Pensions Committee is holding an inquiry into London’s job market, but the London Committee would probably want to examine the way in which Government policy affects London’s labour market in the City and throughout the wider city. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), such an inquiry could involve working with the London Development Agency and the GLA, but given that economic policy is a matter for central Government, a London Committee should hold central Government Ministers to account on their policy for London.
Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting case. He says that economic policy in London is fairly and squarely a matter for the House, so he must be unaware of the huge amount of work being done under the Mayor’s auspices in city hall to determine what can be done to help Londoners and London’s economy to navigate their way through the recession. His suggestion sounds like an absolute duplication of what the London assembly and the Mayor are trying to deliver for London.
Mr. Dismore:
I do not think that the hon. Lady was listening to what I said. I was giving an example of complementary responsibility. I cited the NHS to illustrate
something that is central Government’s responsibility, but I was picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Upminster and setting out an area of overlap. I fully accept that the GLA and the Mayor’s office are examining some of these policies, but responsibility for the economy lies with Treasury Ministers, and we can hold Ministers to account through the Select Committee process in a way that the GLA cannot. That is why it is important that we establish the Committee although, of course, there would be no reason why the Committee could not take account of work carried out elsewhere. We must, however, recognise where the responsibility lies.
Justine Greening: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think that he is forgetting to whom he is accountable. If we asked any owner of a small shop whether they would prefer money to be spent on a Regional Committee that reports on the recession in London, but duplicates all the work of the Mayor and the GLA, or spent on directly supporting shops, they would probably go for the latter. He talks about this as though it is an interest point and a study programme, but we are meant to be representing our constituents and working alongside other tiers of government. He suggests going far beyond that with a structure that will be sheer duplication and will cost taxpayers money that they cannot afford.
Mr. Dismore: I disagree with the hon. Lady. The same would be true if we asked anyone whether they would like money spent on one thing rather than another. Given the reputation of the House in the outside world, people would probably suggest abolishing the lot of us and spending the money on something else, but that is not really the answer to the point. We are trying to develop effective scrutiny.
I see that time is running out, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I believe that the proposed Committee will be a valuable addition to the scrutiny of policy affecting London and Londoners.
1.47 pm
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): Hon. Members will be familiar with the background to the setting up of Regional Select Committees and the crucial vote on their composition, which was won with a Cabinet Minister’s casting vote. The Leader of the House knows that my party does not object in principle to the establishment of Regional Committees or the London Committee, but we object to the composition agreed by the Government. We also have doubts about the ability of Regional Committees and the London Committee to do their job of holding Government agencies and quangos to account.
The process cannot work without real consultation—my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) gave an example of a complete lack of consultation during business questions—or when Members in a region are not represented in the right proportion on a Regional Select Committee. I acknowledge that the London Committee will be one of the few—if not the only—Regional Committee whose membership, albeit completely by chance, reflects the proportion of MPs in the region. The process certainly cannot work effectively if, as is the case on other Regional Committees, a Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary is holding
that Minister to account. That is not a way of ensuring that regional quangos and other bodies are scrutinised effectively, as it clearly involves a significant conflict of interest. The Leader of the House talks about Opposition intransigence, but she would do better to consider whether there is intransigence on the part of the Government and an unwillingness to be flexible about the composition of the Regional Committees. The Liberal Democrats therefore cannot agree to the establishment of the London Regional Committee. As I have stated, I acknowledge that the composition of the London Committee would roughly reflect the number of MPs of different parties across London, but that has happened by accident, rather than design.
The second reason why we have serious reservations about the establishment of the London Select Committee is that we, like the Government, wanted a transfer of powers when the Greater London authority was set up. Indeed, we wanted a more significant transfer of powers to the Mayor and the London assembly than there has been. In many ways, that would have done away with the need for a Regional Select Committee, because the Mayor and the assembly would have held more powers, so the scrutiny role would have been undertaken by the assembly. It would have had a wider range of powers and responsibilities to consider, so there would have been even less demand for a London Regional Select Committee. However, I accept that certain areas of Government policy would remain within the remit or control of the national Government, rather than the London government. Hon. Members have referred to health; there is no reason why significant health powers could not be delivered at a London region level, rather than provided by national Government locally in London. If so, it would have made sense for the assembly to conduct scrutiny at that London level.
We have the same concerns as others do about the duplication that is taking place. When the London assembly and the Mayor’s powers were set up, the expectation was that the Government office for London would go, but its powers and budget seem to have increased, rather than decreased. There is no end in sight to the duplication that arises as a result of the Government office for London remaining in place after the creation of the assembly and of the London Mayor’s powers.
If there is an issue relating to scrutiny, by all means let us look at whether the assembly needs additional powers; it could also propose additional powers itself. There may be issues to do with the extent to which it carries out its scrutiny role, particularly as regards the London Development Agency and the £100 million that may or may not be missing. If there are issues, I am sure that they can be addressed. Other hon. Members have made sensible suggestions about having a London Question Time or an annual debate in the House about London.
Members who have been in the House as long as I have, or roughly as long, will know that in earlier years, but not so much in the past couple of years, we had a series of one-and-a-half-hour Adjournment debates on London issues, on subjects such as the police or health. That seems to have died down, partly, I suspect, as a result of the transfer of powers to the London assembly
and the Mayor. London Members do not feel quite as engaged, or that they have as much responsibility, as they did prior to the implementation of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. However, there are other ways in which we can boost scrutiny, and give Members greater oversight of the matters that are still of interest to them in London, without setting up a London Regional Select Committee.
Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the scrutiny role, and to the role of powers. It is not clear whether the London Select Committee would have any powers at all, or whether it would simply be a scrutiny body. It is difficult to see how it could influence decision making in this place, in the London assembly, or in any other public body, unless it had powers. However, if it had powers it would be creating duplication, as he rightly said.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. My assumption is that the London Select Committee would have the same powers as every other Select Committee; in other words, it would have the power to make recommendations and to bring Ministers to appear before it. However, in practice, as we Members all know, if the Government, or possibly the Mayor or the London assembly, choose to disregard those recommendations, there is nothing that we Members can do about it, apart from draw attention to it in debate and so on. I agree that that is a valid point to which Ministers need to respond.
To conclude, there are no guarantees about the London Select Committee’s composition, and there is not clarity about what scrutiny it will provide that is not provided by the London assembly. Until that clarity is there, the proposal cannot be allowed to proceed.
The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 132.
AYES
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Baird, Vera
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Battle, rh John
Bayley, Hugh
Begg, Miss Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benton, Mr. Joe
Berry, Roger
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blunkett, rh Mr. David
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Bradshaw, rh Mr. Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Byrne, rh Mr. Liam
Cairns, David
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Caton, Mr. Martin
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Chapman, Ben
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clelland, Mr. David
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Frank
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Creagh, Mary
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
David, Mr. Wayne
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobbin, Jim
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Drew, Mr. David
Eagle, Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Gilroy, Linda
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Grogan, Mr. John
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr. Peter
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. David
Hanson, rh Mr. David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Healey, rh John
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Hoon, rh Mr. Geoffrey
Hope, Phil
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Howells, rh Dr. Kim
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hutton, rh Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Lynne
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Khan, rh Mr. Sadiq
Kidney, Mr. David
Knight, rh Jim
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Lammy, rh Mr. David
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew
Malik, Mr. Shahid
Mann, John
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McCartney, rh Mr. Ian
McDonagh, Siobhain
McFall, rh John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
Merron, Gillian
Michael, rh Alun
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Julie
Mudie, Mr. George
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Norris, Dan
O'Brien, rh Mr. Mike
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Pope, Mr. Greg
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Primarolo, rh Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Rammell, Bill
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, John
Roy, Lindsay
Russell, Christine
Sarwar, Mr. Mohammad
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr. Virendra
Sheridan, Jim
Short, rh Clare
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andy
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, rh Angela E. (Basildon)
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stewart, Ian
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Straw, rh Mr. Jack
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Taylor, Ms Dari
Taylor, David
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Mr. Stephen
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Ussher, Kitty
Vaz, rh Keith
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Ward, Claire
Watson, Mr. Tom
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, rh Malcolm
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Wills, rh Mr. Michael
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodward, rh Mr. Shaun
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mark Tami and
Mr. Dave Watts
NOES
Afriyie, Adam
Ainsworth, Mr. Peter
Amess, Mr. David
Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James
Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Baldry, Tony
Baron, Mr. John
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Beresford, Sir Paul
Bone, Mr. Peter
Brake, Tom
Browne, Mr. Jeremy
Browning, Angela
Burns, Mr. Simon
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burt, Alistair
Butterfill, Sir John
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Carswell, Mr. Douglas
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Cormack, Sir Patrick
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh David
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Duddridge, James
Duncan, Alan
Evennett, Mr. David
Field, Mr. Mark
Foster, Mr. Don
Fox, Dr. Liam
Gale, Mr. Roger
Gauke, Mr. David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Gidley, Sandra
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Goodwill, Mr. Robert
Gray, Mr. James
Greening, Justine
Gummer, rh Mr. John
Hague, rh Mr. William
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Harris, Dr. Evan
Heath, Mr. David
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Herbert, Nick
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Holmes, Paul
Horam, Mr. John
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, David
Howell, John
Hunter, Mark
Jack, rh Mr. Michael
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
Jones, Mr. David
Keetch, Mr. Paul
Key, Robert
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Kramer, Susan
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Lewis, Dr. Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Lidington, Mr. David
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew
Main, Anne
Mates, rh Mr. Michael
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Neill, Robert
O'Brien, Mr. Stephen
Öpik, Lembit
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, Mr. James
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Randall, Mr. John
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Reid, Mr. Alan
Rennie, Willie
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Rosindell, Andrew
Russell, Bob
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael
Spring, Mr. Richard
Stanley, rh Sir John
Steen, Mr. Anthony
Streeter, Mr. Gary
Stuart, Mr. Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, Mr. Hugo
Syms, Mr. Robert
Timpson, Mr. Edward
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Tyrie, Mr. Andrew
Vara, Mr. Shailesh
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Walker, Mr. Charles
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Waterson, Mr. Nigel
Watkinson, Angela
Webb, Steve
Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
Williams, Mr. Roger
Willis, Mr. Phil
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Winterton, Ann
Winterton, Sir Nicholas
Yeo, Mr. Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Younger-Ross, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:
Bill Wiggin and
Jeremy Wright
Question accordingly agreed to.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |