Previous Section Index Home Page

Ed Balls: I completely agree with the hon. Lady that we need a change of thought process. The NSPCC laid down a challenge to us in its 2 February letter to begin that change. I believe that the NSPCC would agree that we did so with Lord Laming's report a year ago, when we started to change "Working Together". All I would
23 Feb 2010 : Column 215
say is that the NSPCC is clear that even in redacted form, publishing the full SCR would put children at risk and stop them, young people and their families from co-operating with the full SCR process. That is why it is against publishing the full SCR.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being true to form by trooping out the usual suspects, including the NSPCC. I have some questions for him. First, why was the letter that he sent to the NSPCC, which contains information that is very germane to today's debate, released to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) at only 3.12 pm this afternoon, just before we started the debate, and why was it not made available to other Members of the House? Secondly, on the NSPCC, how many times has the NSPCC been mentioned in executive summaries of SCRs? Would the NSPCC have been mentioned in the executive summary of an SCR into the Victoria Climbié case, because it was certainly implicated in the full Laming report? It is most likely that that would not have come out in an executive summary.

Ed Balls: I hear the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not agree with it. I do not agree that the NSPCC is a "usual suspect", and I do not believe that it makes its arguments for self-interested motives as a way of trying to cover up its role in any cases. The NSPCC is an upstanding, highly respected, very professional organisation. To talk down its contribution to the debate by suggesting that it is trying to cover up its complicity in past failures is actually wrong and completely unfair. I do not know how many times the NSPCC has been in executive summaries-I have not checked.

If the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) had been in the Chamber before now-he has only just arrived-he might have made the point about the letter himself. I wrote to the NSPCC today, because I wanted to be able to refer to its letter in the debate. In my letter to the NSPCC, I stated that it has raised serious issues regarding the monitoring of SCRs and the implementation of its recommendations one year on. We will ensure that when we publish our progress report one year on from the Laming review in the next few weeks, we will incorporate the NSPCC's views following our discussions and meetings.

It is important to ensure that the SCR and the executive summary is a strong and good document. Independent assurance and compliance are very important, and we will ensure that we respond on those matters in the next few weeks. However, publishing SCRs and ignoring the NSPCC would be quite the wrong thing to do. That is why I urge hon. Members to reject new clause 1.

Mr. Timpson: Will the Secretary of State address the proposal in new clause 1 on the appointment of the author of SCRs? Is he satisfied with the current process for doing that in the light of the extremely enlightening examples given to us by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins)?

Ed Balls: I was coming to that issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central made important points. He has raised questions in the past as to whether the authors of SCRs are properly independent.
23 Feb 2010 : Column 216
As he knows, one reason why the first SCR into baby Peter was rejected and redone was precisely that it was not seen to be drawn up independently. Following Lord Laming's report this spring, we have now changed our statutory guidance to reflect the view that the SCR must now be independently chaired. That is a requirement in law. We also now have a training package for SCR chairs and overview authors to ensure that they are properly prepared for that work. Lord Laming's work addressed exactly the issue that my hon. Friend has raised. It is true that some SCRs were not independently drawn up-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State, but it is difficult for Hansard writers to hear him when his back is to the Chair.

Ed Balls: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker-I was addressing my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central. His points are important, and they have been addressed by Lord Laming's recommendations.

Amendments 35 to 40 are on whether we should list agencies that contribute to SCRs. We are clear that the executive summary needs to have a much clearer time line of what has happened in cases. I do not think that that happened fully in the Doncaster-Edlington SCR, but it will under the new guidelines.

Practitioners must be confident that they can disclose relevant information in co-operating fully with SCRs. I do not believe that any steps should be taken that would reduce the willingness of individuals to contribute to SCRs. That is not the right way to go. However, it is important-Lord Laming highlighted this in his report-to ensure that all information can be given in the SCR process. The measure clarifies that position.

The amendments would mean that such information is provided only to SCRs. However, there will be occasions on which LSCBs have an obligation to collect information for reports that are not SCRs. For example, following the death of a child, the LSCB must ask professionals to provide information, so that it can produce the child death review, which it must now provide after the death of every child. That can go widely to involve, for example, deaths from road traffic accidents or sudden infant death syndrome, when it is important to get information from general or hospital practitioners.

It is also important for the LSCB to know-this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North-that adequate safeguarding procedures training is being done in our schools for full-time and temporary staff. Again, that is a matter for the LSCB. To restrict the collection of information only to SCRs would undermine child death reviews and that important staff training function. Again, I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their proposals to a Division.

On amendment 88, which is on requests for information related to an SCR, it is important to ensure that the LSCB has proper information-sharing arrangements and protocols, and that they are properly kept under review. We are speaking to the agencies on those matters, and we will clarify the situation and revise statutory guidance to ensure that that is done properly. Again, we can do that without the amendment.

23 Feb 2010 : Column 217

Amendment 48 and consequent amendments are, in our view, unnecessarily restrictive on Ofsted's role. It is clear what the role of Ofsted is in inspecting the effectiveness of LSCBs. We will ensure that that happens through the regular area-wide reviews. We can also ensure that Ofsted looks at the compliance report that we will produce one year on after every SCR. However, in our judgment, we do not need to place the restrictions on Ofsted that are proposed in amendments 48 and 90.

In a few weeks' time, we will publish our progress report, a year on from Lord Laming's report. We now have the national safeguarding delivery unit up and running, which is a step forward. We have already revised "Working Together", and will do so further following the input of the NSPCC and other organisations, to ensure that we have full, state-of-the-art executive summaries for serious case reviews, and that actions are properly implemented and monitored. We think that the restrictions in the amendments are unnecessary, and in particular we believe that to publish the full serious case review as a matter of policy-in the face of all the expert advice from all those people working in child protection-would be a backward step for children. It would put their safety at risk and mean that they, their families and other professionals would be less likely to co-operate. That would mean that we would be less likely to learn the lessons of terrible incidents in the future. It would be a retrograde step for child protection, and I urge the House to reject new clause 1.

Tim Loughton: I concur with the Secretary of State that we have had a good debate. It was a debate that we needed to have, because we missed having it in Committee. It has been constructive and measured, and almost non-partisan. But it ended with the Secretary of State not really giving us any assurance that we have moved on. He said that clauses 28 to 30 took the strengthening of serious case reviews forward. How? Serious case reviews are not even mentioned on the face of the Bill. We are only debating serious case reviews today because of our amendments and new clauses. Everything that the Secretary of State talked about has not happened, and the public do not have confidence that it will happen to the extent necessary for people to feel again that children and vulnerable families are being properly safeguarded.

We had an interesting, if confusing, debate on new clause 10; at one stage it entered a parallel universe. I was very interested in the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and it was very useful that the Secretary of State cleared up the confusion by saying that there is no confusion, and that we are not confused about what we are not confused about-and that what we are not confused about we do not know we are not confused about. That made everything very clear. I was disappointed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone because it took him 11 minutes before he gave the issue of reasonable chastisement a European dimension. Clearly he is slow off the mark after the half-term recess.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) spoke to the new clause, and I concur with the Secretary of State that there is a grey area that may need to be addressed in legislation. The hon. Lady was right to say that the only reason why we are debating this issue today is that amendments were tabled
23 Feb 2010 : Column 218
in Committee that we were not able to debate. The result is that Sir Roger Singleton has been engaged to look into those grey areas and report what action, if any, is required. So the job has been done. We now await empirical evidence of whether changes need to be made. By the hon. Lady's own logic, I would have thought that she would not press the new clause to a Division. We need to hear the evidence, not to prejudge it. In any case, smacking has always been an issue for a free vote on this side of the House.

7.15 pm

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins) made some pertinent points from real experience of horrific deaths in his constituency involving serious case reviews that had not passed muster-contemporary serious case reviews that were not complementary, and which raised serious questions about the independence of their authorship. One phrase he used that struck me in particular was "the culture of justification" of what had taken place. That is why we need a radical change. We cannot go on producing the same old serious case reviews with assurances that we now have comprehensive executive summaries and everything has been done under the new system. We are still not entitled to see the evidence. We still cannot see the proof that what went wrong has been properly laid bare, or that what needs to go right in the future will do, because the lessons have been learned. They will continue to be kept secret, and that is not acceptable. If we are to restore any confidence in the system of safeguarding children, transparency and accountability have to underlie everything to do with serious case reviews and learning the lessons.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) slightly confused the points that I made about our amendments and the functions of LSCBs. The clauses in the Bill refer only to the supply of information. The hon. Lady rightly said that LSCBs conduct a range of other useful functions, including training. It is right that they should do so, and our amendments would affect none of that. The amendments refer only to the supply of information, so she need have no anxieties on that score.

The executive summary of the horrific case in Edlington, and the disparity with the full 150-page serious case review, blew the whole scam sky high. It has been clearly shown that there was no resemblance between the full serious case review-which was to be kept secret, available only to a small select body of people-and the 11 pages of comprehensive executive summary. There is no excuse for officials and councillors in Doncaster, either of their own volition or under instruction from the Secretary of State, not to publish if not the full serious case review, a much bigger version of it. A system in which the public are denied the full story-or, as in the Doncaster case, are actually misled about what really happened-can have no credibility. Without that information we cannot learn the lessons, rectify the mistakes, or move on.

The Edlington serious case review may not have been suitable to publish in full; I do not know. That is why the amendments contain serious caveats about publication not being detrimental to the welfare of surviving children or their siblings, and about anonymity. The families of the people involved in the Edlington case are sure that they want to know the full story. They want to see the
23 Feb 2010 : Column 219
full serious case review published. Everybody in Edlington knows who all the characters are-if they do not, they can find all the names on the internet-and there is no excuse for not publishing that serious case review.

The Secretary of State made play of my comments about the NSPCC. It does much good work, but it has been changing its position on serious case reviews. Recently, in the letter to which he replied-although he did not give us sight of it until 20 minutes before the start of the debate this afternoon-it has come forward with further suggestions. If we have further serious case reviews that reveal further tragic events such as those in Edlington and Haringey in a year or two's time, the NSPCC might be brought round to our way of thinking-that the only solution is a full publication of serious case reviews.

The Secretary of State did not once mention the British Association of Social Workers and the practitioners at the sharp end, day in, day out, dealing with horrific cases, including cases such as those that made the headlines in Doncaster, Edlington, Haringey, Birmingham and other places. They deal with that every day of their professional existence, and that organisation, which represents the very best of many of our social workers, agrees that the only solution is a full publication of serious case reviews.

I want to remind the Secretary of State of the words of a former colleague of his-the former Member for Lancaster and Wyre, a fully qualified social worker, who is now the head of the BASW. Hilton Dawson said:

The Secretary of State chose selectively to pray in aid certain organisations that share his view, but chose to ignore completely the 12,000 members of the professional body of social workers in this country, who now agree with a growing number of people that we desperately need full publication.

We need a fundamental change in the culture of how we approach child protection. That is what the new clause and the amendments are all about. Only if we have full transparency and accountability, subject to the caveats that I have given, will we start to bring about that fundamental change; to restore public confidence in child protection, which has suffered such enormous knocks in recent years; to restore morale within the social work profession, which has taken a huge knock, particularly since the baby Peter scandal; and to ensure that all agencies involved in safeguarding can see clearly where mistakes have been made and work together to ensure, wherever possible, that they are not repeated on their watch or in their patch. That is why, I am afraid, no amount of praying in aid by the Secretary of State of the same suspects will give the assurances that the public need and are entitled to. That is why the time has come to have that fundamental culture change-and that is what our amendments and new clause offer: that is why it is so important to put new clause 1 to the vote tonight.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

23 Feb 2010 : Column 220

The House having divided: Ayes 172, Noes 277.
Division No. 82]
[7.22 pm


Afriyie, Adam
Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James
Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Tony
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Benyon, Mr. Richard
Binley, Mr. Brian
Blunt, Mr. Crispin
Bone, Mr. Peter
Boswell, Mr. Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Brady, Mr. Graham
Brake, Tom
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browning, Angela
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Burns, Mr. Simon
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Butterfill, Sir John
Campbell, Mr. Gregory
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carswell, Mr. Douglas
Cash, Mr. William
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Clappison, Mr. James
Clarke, rh Mr. Kenneth
Conway, Derek
Cousins, Jim
Crabb, Mr. Stephen
Curry, rh Mr. David
Davey, Mr. Edward
Davies, David T.C. (Monmouth)
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh David
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr. Stephen
Dunne, Mr. Philip
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Evennett, Mr. David
Fabricant, Michael
Farron, Tim
Field, Mr. Mark
Foster, Mr. Don
Francois, Mr. Mark
Fraser, Christopher
Gale, Mr. Roger
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Gidley, Sandra
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Goldsworthy, Julia
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Goodwill, Mr. Robert
Gove, Michael
Gray, Mr. James
Grayling, Chris
Green, Damian
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Mr. Mike
Harper, Mr. Mark
Harris, Dr. Evan
Harvey, Nick
Hayes, Mr. John
Heald, Mr. Oliver
Heath, Mr. David
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hemming, John
Hogg, rh Mr. Douglas
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Holmes, Paul
Horam, Mr. John
Horwood, Martin
Hunter, Mark
Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
Jones, Mr. David
Kawczynski, Daniel
Key, Robert
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Lancaster, Mr. Mark
Lansley, Mr. Andrew
Laws, Mr. David
Leech, Mr. John
Leigh, Mr. Edward
Letwin, rh Mr. Oliver
Lewis, Dr. Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Lidington, Mr. David
Lilley, rh Mr. Peter
Loughton, Tim
Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew
Main, Anne
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Maude, rh Mr. Francis
McCrea, Dr. William
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, Mr. Andrew
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Mulholland, Greg
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr. Brooks
O'Brien, Mr. Stephen
Ottaway, Richard
Paterson, Mr. Owen
Pelling, Mr. Andrew
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Prisk, Mr. Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, Dr. John
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rowen, Paul
Russell, Bob
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Scott, Mr. Lee

Shapps, Grant
Shepherd, Mr. Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, David
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Sir Robert
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Spicer, Sir Michael
Spink, Bob
Spring, Mr. Richard
Stanley, rh Sir John
Steen, Mr. Anthony
Streeter, Mr. Gary
Stuart, Mr. Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr. Robert
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Timpson, Mr. Edward
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Tyrie, Mr. Andrew
Vara, Mr. Shailesh
Viggers, Sir Peter
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Walker, Mr. Charles
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Watkinson, Angela
Webb, Steve
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Stephen
Willis, Mr. Phil
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Winterton, Ann
Winterton, Sir Nicholas
Young, rh Sir George
Younger-Ross, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:

James Duddridge and
Jeremy Wright

Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Bain, Mr. William
Baird, Vera
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Battle, rh John
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Miss Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benton, Mr. Joe
Berry, Roger
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Blunkett, rh Mr. David
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Bradshaw, rh Mr. Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burgon, Colin
Burnham, rh Andy
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byrne, rh Mr. Liam
Cairns, David
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Challen, Colin
Chapman, Ben
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clelland, Mr. David
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Connarty, Michael
Cook, Frank
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creagh, Mary
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Davies, Mr. Dai
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Denham, rh Mr. John
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Drew, Mr. David
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Etherington, Bill
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara

Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Gilroy, Linda
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Grogan, Mr. John
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr. David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr. Tom
Healey, rh John
Henderson, Mr. Doug
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia
Hill, rh Keith
Hillier, Meg
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hope, Phil
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Howells, rh Dr. Kim
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Lynne
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Kelly, rh Ruth
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Khan, rh Mr. Sadiq
Kidney, Mr. David
Knight, rh Jim
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lepper, David
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew
MacShane, rh Mr. Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Malik, Mr. Shahid
Mallaber, Judy
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCafferty, Chris
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr. Pat
McFall, rh John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, rh Mr. Tony
Meale, Mr. Alan
Merron, Gillian
Michael, rh Alun
Milburn, rh Mr. Alan
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Moffat, Anne
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Julie
Mudie, Mr. George
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Munn, Meg
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Murphy, rh Mr. Jim
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Norris, Dan
O'Brien, rh Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Olner, Mr. Bill
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pope, Mr. Greg
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Prescott, rh Mr. John
Prosser, Gwyn
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Reid, rh John
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Christine
Ryan, rh Joan
Salter, Martin
Sarwar, Mr. Mohammad
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr. Virendra
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Simpson, Alan
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andy
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew

Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Smith, rh Angela E. (Basildon)
Smith, Geraldine
Smith, rh Jacqui
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
Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry
Tami, Mark
Taylor, Ms Dari
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Tipping, Paddy
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Ussher, Kitty
Vaz, rh Keith
Walley, Joan
Ward, Claire
Wareing, Mr. Robert N.
Watson, Mr. Tom
Watts, Mr. Dave
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, rh Malcolm
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Wyatt, Derek
Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Frank Roy and
Lyn Brown
Question accordingly negatived.
Next Section Index Home Page