Police Searches on the Parliamentary Estate - Committee on the Issue of Privilege Contents

Examination of Witness (Question Numbers 120-139)



  Q120  Chairman: Would you like to begin then, Lord Martin, by reading from paragraph 1 of your memorandum?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: (1) I wish to set out to the Committee the facts as I know them with regard to the search of the offices of the hon Member for Ashford on Thursday 27 November 2008. (2) The first part of this memorandum deals with the search and contains both my personal recollection of events where I was directly involved and also information related to me on 27 November and thereafter on matters which occurred before the day of the search and afterwards. The second part the memorandum deals briefly with the establishment of your Committee. (3) This is the first time I have commented on these matters. This is because I regard it as my duty to account first to the House and its committees and not to the media. (4) A crucial meeting of each sitting day is the morning briefing attended by the Speaker, Deputy Speakers, Clerk of the House and other senior officials. On Wednesday 26 November 2008, as I approached the Speaker's Study for the morning briefing meeting at 10.27 (the meeting normally starts promptly at 10.30), I was met by the Speaker's Secretary and the Serjeant at Arms. The Speaker's Secretary told me that the Serjeant wished to see me alone on an urgent matter. The Serjeant asked me into an adjoining room and closed the door so that we could speak privately. (The Speaker's Secretary told me later that he had suggested to the Serjeant that he should be present, but the Serjeant had declined.) (5) The Serjeant told me that counter-terrorism officers from the Metropolitan Police were investigating a Member and might wish shortly to arrest that individual for conspiring to commit misconduct in public office. The Serjeant said that she did not know the Member's name. It was agreed that I would be contacted when the Serjeant knew more. No reference was made to a search of the Member's office within the precincts. (6) I was extremely concerned that a Member was being investigated by anti-terrorist police. In my mind I had an idea of Islamic or Irish terrorism. I had no idea at the time of the very different type of offence of which Mr Green would be accused. (7) The Serjeant explained that the matter was strictly confidential. It was not unusual for senior officers to approach me on confidential matters. It was my understanding that such matters would always be discussed with senior officers as necessary before I was informed. (8) In the late afternoon of the same day (after 1600 hours but before 1700 hours) the Serjeant telephoned me at my residence to inform me that she did not know the name of the Member concerned but she was likely to be informed very early the next morning. The Serjeant agreed to call me at 0730 hours the following morning. (9) At 0730 on Thursday 27 November the Serjeant telephoned me. The conversation was brief. She told me that she was calling from her residence. It was not until the conversation was underway that she informed me that a police officer was with her. The Serjeant informed me that the Member was Damian Green and that an arrest would take place later that day. She stated that Mr Green's home, his constituency office and his office within the precincts would be searched. (10) I believed, as I was entitled to, that the search of Mr Green's office within the precincts would be carried out under a proper warrant. The need for a warrant is clear from the guidance note issued by the then Clerk of the House in the year 2000. Although I was not aware of the terms of the guidance until recently, the guidance should have been followed. The Serjeant did not inform me that the basis of the search would be a consent form to be signed by her as opposed to a warrant. I would not have expected consent to be given without the Speaker's explicit permission. I would not have given my permission. (11) It is my clear view, and was at the time that Damian Green's office was searched, that without a search warrant the police should not be able to search the offices of a Member in the course of a criminal investigation. Had I become aware at any time before the search was completed that there was no search warrant, I would have made it clear that either no search should take place or, if it had started, that it had to stop immediately. (12) The need for a search warrant was basic. It never occurred to me that the Serjeant would give consent to a police search of a Member's office in a police investigation without a warrant. Until I discovered the following day that there was no warrant, I had assumed the search was authorised by a search warrant. This seemed to me to be so basic that I did not ask the Serjeant about the warrant when I was first told of an impending search on the morning of 27 November. By the time I discovered there was no warrant, which was in the evening of 27 November, the search was over. (13) I concluded my 7.30 conversation on 27 November by asking the Serjeant to be kept informed. After the call I left for my constituency in Glasgow. (14) On the afternoon of Thursday 27th I travelled to visit my eldest brother who is chronically ill. My brother and his wife live a distance of 60 miles away from Glasgow. At approximately 1700 hours the Speaker's Secretary telephoned me at my brother's house to inform me that the police had come into the House and were searching Mr Green's office and that he understood that Mr Green had been arrested in his constituency. The Speaker's Secretary told me that the Clerk of the House had wanted to convey to me that the search was underway and was being conducted properly. He also told me that the Conservative Chief Whip, the Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin, wanted to speak to me. I requested details of the paperwork relating to the search and told the Speaker's Secretary to keep me informed of events and to pass further details to me when I returned home. I also arranged for Mr McLoughlin to call me later when I was back in Glasgow. I did not think it was appropriate to use my brother's house for communications in view of his illness. (15) During my journey back to Glasgow, the Speaker's Assistant Secretary called me to explain that copies of the paperwork approving the search were now in his possession and could be faxed to me. I explained that I would not have access to a fax machine before I spoke to Mr McLoughlin at 2030 hours that night. I therefore asked the Assistant Secretary to tell me the name of the magistrate who had signed what I still presumed to be a proper search warrant. He explained that there were only two names in the documents, those of a police officer and the Serjeant. He described the document as a consent form. I was seriously concerned that there was no magistrate's warrant. (16) I expressed deep surprise and deep concern that no warrant had been insisted upon when I spoke to Mr McLoughlin at 2100 hours that evening. The lack of a warrant and the conduct of the search were the main topics of our conversation. (17) On Friday 28th and on Saturday 29th November I had a number of conversations with the Speaker's Secretary. These confirmed my unease at the House officials' management of the police's entry into the House and their search of Mr Green's office. The difficulties of establishing detail were compounded by the absence of the Clerk of the House who had left for private travel abroad. I am disappointed that the Clerk of the House, who holds the office of Chief Executive, was out of the country when there was so serious a situation in the House. (18) I was also shocked when I was told that when the Clerk had discovered the search was based on consent as opposed to a warrant, he had instructed the Serjeant to write a letter to the police officer in charge of the search to limit the search to matters relating to the charge but that he had not prevented the search from continuing. I have no legal qualifications, but I understand that the consent to search by the Serjeant could have been withdrawn at any stage. I would have expected it to be withdrawn when the Clerk had found out that a warrant had not been obtained. (19) I was further disappointed to be told that Speaker's Counsel was not informed of the search on Thursday 27 November, the day of the search. (20) On 29 November the Speaker's Secretary arranged for me to speak at around 1000 hours, for the first time since the search, to Speaker's Counsel who had just returned from overseas. I would point out, Chairman, that overseas was Ireland; he was in Dublin at a conference. I learnt then of what I regarded as serious failings: the failure to insist on a warrant for search and the lack of co-ordination for the proper handling of such a sensitive matter. (21) At around 1600 hours on Saturday 29 November the Clerk of the House telephoned me briefly to say that he was briefing the Leader of the House. He agreed to my proposal that we should meet on Monday evening. This was the first conversation that I had held with the Clerk since the issue arose. Since I was in a public place when he telephoned, the conversation was necessarily restricted. It would have been very helpful for me to have the assistance of the Clerk over the weekend and I regret that I did not. (22) Damian Green telephoned me at home at my suggestion sometime after 1700 hours on 29 November. I told him that I had not authorised the search but I pointed out that I could not have stopped a search if there had been a warrant. I asked if I could be of any help to him. Mr Green explained the police had taken away the hard disk from his office in the precincts and that on Monday his staff would be unable to do any office work at all. I telephoned the Serjeant at her residence to ask her to tell the police to return the hard disk to Mr Green's office. This was done. (23) In view of the long-standing convention that the House should be informed first, I decided not to speak to the media but to make a statement to the House when it reconvened on 3 December. The media caused considerable difficulty to my wife and me at our home in Glasgow where they camped outside our home all day and night. One photographer was so intrusive that the police had to warn him about his conduct on our private property and he agreed to leave the locality. (24) On Monday 1 December, when I had returned to London, I met with the Speaker's Secretary and the Clerk of the House at around 2100 hours to discuss the details known to them. (25) On 2 December I again met with the Clerk, Speaker's Counsel, the Serjeant at Arms and Speaker's Secretary. The purpose of this meeting was for me to establish the facts in order to make my statement to the House the next day. (26) At this meeting officials agreed with me that there had been serious failings in communication and in management. The Clerk told me that he not known of the search until he saw it happening on television. It was clear also that the Serjeant had known of the nature of the police operation for close to a week before the 26 November. I was disappointed when I learned that there had been several meetings between the police and the Serjeant and when I asked for the names of the police officers with whom she had met she told me she could not recall them. I also asked if minutes or notes of the meetings had been kept because I wanted to know precisely what had happened and I was told by the Serjeant there were no minutes and there were no notes. (27) I also learnt that the Serjeant had not informed me that, at approximately 1500 hours on Wednesday 26 November, she had a meeting with three senior police officers concerned in the operation and with Chief Superintendent Bateman (the senior officer in charge of the Metropolitan Police at the Palace) and that, during the course of that meeting, she had left them in her room and gone to the Clerk Assistant to put to him what she described as a "what if" scenario as to whether she had the authority to consent to bring the police into a Member's office. The Clerk Assistant, to whom the Serjeant at Arms reports, had referred her to the Clerk of the House. The Serjeant had put the same questions to the Clerk of the House and the Clerk had informed her that she had that authority. (28) I would have expected the Clerk of the House and the Clerk Assistant to have questioned the Serjeant further as to why she was posing questions of this type at this particular time. I was also disappointed that the Serjeant did not inform me about her meeting with police officers and her discussion of the issue of giving consent when she telephoned me later that afternoon of 26 November. (29) During the course of the meeting of 2 December, I asked the Serjeant why she had conducted herself in this manner. The Clerk of the House intervened to say that Chief Superintendent Bateman had bamboozled the Serjeant and tricked her into keeping the matter from her immediate superiors. The Clerk went on to say that, while Chief Superintendent Bateman was a senior Metropolitan Police officer, he also had a duty towards the House. (30) There were other worrying facts. For example, it was only on the afternoon of 2 December that a letter was received from Assistant Commissioner Quick informing me, as Speaker, of his investigation concerning the hon Member for Ashford; it had been written some days before. (31) In discussion with the Leader of the House, I made it known that I wanted the House to consider setting up a Speaker's Committee on the search of offices in the Parliamentary Estate. There was an agreement when I made my statement on 3 December that the Committee of Enquiry would be set up immediately. That agreement was between me and the Leader. (32) After I had made my statement to the House, the Leader later informed me that a motion was going to be put down that the inquiry would not sit until criminal proceedings were dealt with. She told me that she had sought and was acting on the Attorney General's advice. I appealed to the Prime Minister that evening that such a restriction was unnecessary and that the Committee should meet as a matter of urgency, but my request was declined. (33) The motion put to the House on 8 December 2008 provided that the work of the Committee be adjourned until the completion of any relevant police inquiry or resulting criminal proceedings. (An amendment to remove this provision was narrowly defeated.) (34) From then on until the end of the police investigation and the statement by the DPP, no action could be taken by the House to allow the Committee to proceed to investigate matters related to this case. (35) As a result of the House's decision to agree to the motion in the form the Government proposed, I was unable to agree to the requests I received on an almost daily basis to allow the matter to be debated on the floor of the House. This caused resentment between me and many Members of the House and was a matter of great regret to me. (36) I was always concerned by this and when I left the House in June I advocated, in my valedictory address, that the Committee be established in order to investigate the detail and make recommendations that would help to avoid something similar occurring again. The Protocol which I announced on 3 December was one means of preventing a similar incident. (37) I have read Mr Green's evidence about his concern about the way in which parliamentary privilege was determined in respect to the documents seized from him by the police. I, like the whole House, always relied on the advice of the Clerk of the House and his colleagues, who are the experts on parliamentary privilege. I am sure that the Clerks considered the issue in this case in the interests of the House as a whole. (38) I certainly do not think that it would have been practical or appropriate for the House as a whole to decide which documents in this case might or might not have been privileged. There may have been merits in the Committee on Standards and Privileges meeting to consider relevant issues. As I have said earlier, I wanted the special committee to be established as soon as possible. However, once the House agreed the more restrictive motion tabled by the Leader with its provision that the issue could not be considered until any criminal case was resolved, I felt that I was inhibited from allowing a motion which would have been debatable, and very possibly prejudicial to any criminal proceedings, to refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. (39) I do not believe that the correct decision was made by the Serjeant in consenting to the search taking place. I also believe the House through its Speaker was not served as well as it ought to have been. Finally, I regret the delay in commencing your Committee's work. (40) I look forward to amplifying these points and answering any other questions when I give oral evidence.

  Q121  Chairman: Thank you very much for that, Lord Martin, and thank you for its very comprehensive nature. Perhaps I might just begin by asking one or two questions about your experience as Speaker. You were elected by the whole House in October 2000 following the retirement of the now Baroness Boothroyd; is that correct?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: That is correct, Sir.

  Q122  Chairman: At that time was there any kind of handover period or any kind of what is sometimes called orientation or was it the case that you assumed the responsibilities of Speaker from the moment at which the election of the House took place?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: No, Sir Menzies, straight into the deep end. You just get on with it. And if you recall as the new Speaker I was taking points of order on the first day of my Speakership so no-one was going easy on the new Speaker. In fact, I think in the early days it was like the new headmaster coming into the school that some Members were taking liberties, so there was no orientation; far from it.

  Q123  Chairman: Perhaps a cane would have been helpful. But you of course had been a Deputy Speaker for some time.

  Lord Martin of Springburn: I had been a Deputy Speaker for some time but being a Deputy Speaker and being a Speaker are light years apart because as Deputy Speaker what you did was you took your share in the Chamber whereas you soon learned when you became Speaker, and I have described the Clerk as the Chief Executive of the organisation, as Speaker you are like the Chairman of the organisation, and therefore you deal with all sorts of people and all sorts of things. There is security, which we have discussed, there is maintenance, and it is a caring organisation because there are many thousands of people employed here in the precincts of this Parliamentary Estate, so everyone with any responsibility says, "If I put it across the Speaker's desk then there is some responsibility shared." As a Deputy Speaker that was not something that you had to deal with, so it was very, very new.

  Q124  Chairman: Of course you had been the chairman of standing committees on many occasions as part of your membership of the Speaker's Panel and I think also you were at one stage the Chairman of the Administration Committee; is that correct?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: The Admin Committee.

  Q125  Chairman: But in none of these roles, as you have described the role of Deputy Speaker, did you have access or involvement in the duties of the Speaker?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: No.

  Q126  Chairman: Do I take it that in neither of these roles you did not have that access either?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: No, the Admin Committee certainly there was more access to officials and officials briefing you and decisions to be made on matters like passes and accommodation and as to whether the media should be on the Terrace and things like that.

  Q127  Chairman: I think we remember that.

  Lord Martin of Springburn: But I think that anyone using common sense, provided the officers of the House are straight with you and come to you and say, "Look, I have a problem and this is the problem that I have," whether you have an in-depth knowledge of the expertise that they have, it is mainly common sense tells you what the answer would be. However, you are very much dependent on the officials being straight with you. If they are hiding something and not telling you the full story then you come into difficulties. I found it easy to draw on the other experiences I had as a Member of Parliament, as a councillor in Glasgow City Council and also as a full-time trade union officer and common sense prevailed provided that people were being frank with you and there was nothing being hidden.

  Q128  Chairman: I take it from all that, Lord Martin, that you had had no experience of the sort of circumstances which you found yourself facing in November 2008 in relation to Damian Green?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: No and I think the flaw there was an officer came to me and said that this is highly confidential. That had happened in the past. Other people responsible for security, including Serjeants, had come to me and said, "Well, we are living in London where terrorism has been a problem, there is a concern about a terrorist cell operating and I want to tell you that this is happening and it is being investigated." It was clear that the officer who brought me the information was the messenger but it had been discussed with others behind the scenes. It was very common indeed for me as Speaker to get highly confidential information and in this case I had a right to presume that others were involved.

  Q129  Chairman: Can I ask you this question: were you familiar with the existence of the McKay memorandum?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: No and I checked as soon as I was compiling this statement as to when Sir William McKay, who was the first Clerk who served me as Speaker, made this memorandum and it was actually in the summer of 2000, the year I was elected, but it was under the Speakership of Speaker Boothroyd. I do not know why the memorandum was created. There is usually some reason for a Clerk to draw up a memorandum. From the date I was given it would appear to me that it was during a parliamentary recess but I was not Speaker at the time.

  Q130  Chairman: And he never thought to draw it to your attention when you assumed the responsibilities of the Speaker?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: No because there is a whole labyrinth of Clerks' memoranda and there is Erskine May. On a day-to-day basis the situation can change from one particular crisis to another. It is for the procedural experts, the Clerks, to say there is a memorandum covering that or Erskine May says the following or we have some other document which covers that. That is what I consider them to be there for because there is not only one Clerk of the House; there is a whole Clerk's Department and some are experts in different procedures. If everything that a Speaker should know or everything that a Clerk has created on paper is brought before the Speaker, then the Speaker would be sitting in an attic somewhere doing nothing but reading all the pieces of information that they put forward. They are procedural experts, they like writing things; whereas the House of Commons is a day-to-day activity. A Speaker has got to prepare him or herself for the day ahead. In the old days it was 2.30 and every day presents different problems.

  Q131  Sir Alan Beith: Lord Martin, in your memorandum you take us carefully through the sequence of events when you were met on your way to the morning briefing at 10.27 on Monday 2 November. When you were told by the Serjeant a limited number of things about the possibility of a search, why did you not at that stage seek the assistance of the Clerk? I know you have just indicated that you thought he might have been consulted anyway but from your own point of view would it have been advantageous at that point to ask the Clerk, who was of course in the next room awaiting you?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: I was told that there was a possibility. It was not definite that there was going to be an arrest or search or anything else, but I was told this in strict confidence, so therefore I was put in this position that an officer told me, "I must tell you this information in strictest confidence." The other danger is that any of us in this room, and some of us are Privy Counsellors—in fact looking around most of us are Privy Counsellors—when you are given information on Privy Council terms it is like the confession box in my faith; you cannot repeat it. I had to treat what an officer was saying in Privy Council terms because there had been previous occasions where there had been leaks in newspapers and perhaps my name has been involved and I would have said, "Thank God I didn't tell anyone about this and therefore I cannot be responsible for this." But let me say, Sir Alan, 50/50 vision is what you have with hindsight. With hindsight, I would never allow an officer to say, "This is confidential and you will tell no-one else," but that had happened to me before and it had worked well. Interestingly enough, it was usually a Serjeant at Arms that would speak to me on that basis. The other worry I had is that you have got to remember that from the outside world across party we were seen sometimes as an enclosed organisation and perhaps helping one another. Another worry I had was that it was put to me it was an anti-terrorism organisation and that worried me.

  Q132  Sir Alan Beith: I am going to come on to that point in a moment but initially you obviously felt inhibited, if I understand you right, by the way in which the Serjeant said this was a confidential matter. An alternative would have been to say to the Serjeant, "I assume you have consulted the Clerk but if you have not I intend to do so," and let her object if she chose. That is with hindsight obviously.

  Lord Martin of Springburn: That is with hindsight and if I was asked to do that again that is the way I would do it. But also it has got to be remembered the interviewing process, there was a vacancy for Serjeant and it was a new position in the sense that the new Serjeant was strictly for security whereas the previous Serjeants were security, cleaning, passes, all the things I did in the Admin Committee. I worked closely with the Deputy Serjeant at Arms because the amount was amazing. I think in personnel the only area that they did not look after was catering. They had a great many responsibilities. The new post was strictly security and ceremonial and also it was brought in through the Tebbit reforms and it was said that the new Serjeant would report to the Clerk Assistant and to the Clerk of the House. Those were the two individuals they were to report to. Bear in mind when I made the appointment of Serjeant a body with independent advisers had brought the Serjeant applicants down to five and that was the filter system and two would come out of that and the Speaker would interview two. So I had a Serjeant who had survived the short leet of five and come through to a short leet of two. If it was a young security officer out there that had only two months' experience under their belt I would have been saying, "Have you done this? Have you done that." I am talking about someone who was recommended to me to have all that experience. I expected there would be someone at a senior level, namely the Serjeant and the Clerk, that they should be consulting with, and I would have expected that. But with hindsight I was let down there in that expectation. The Speaker should be surrounded by people who are highly professional and should be doing that.

  Q133  Sir Alan Beith: Did the same inhibition apply to consulting Speaker's Counsel or was Speaker's Counsel already in Ireland at that point?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: At the point that the Serjeant spoke to me?

  Q134  Sir Alan Beith: Yes.

  Lord Martin of Springburn: Well, that was another area. In anything legal I would expect Speaker's Counsel to be consulted because Speaker's Counsel is a man called Michael Carpenter, who will probably give evidence to you, but my understanding is that there are at least another four solicitors.

  Q135  Sir Alan Beith: I need to get this clear, Lord Martin. Was it that you assumed that these people had been consulted?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: Yes.

  Q136  Sir Alan Beith: Or that you thought it might not be possible to consult them because of the nature of the matter?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: No, I had assumed these people had been consulted. There was some reason why the Serjeant had told me to keep it confidential. Speaker's Counsel was not in Ireland. My understanding is that at the time on the Wednesday when the Serjeant spoke to me Speaker's Counsel was going to a conference in Dublin. He will tell you this himself. I understand that when the search was underway that Speaker's Counsel could have been recalled from Heathrow Airport. He had headed for Dublin because he did not know there was anything wrong.

  Q137  Sir Alan Beith: Just to turn to the other point that you made in the memorandum. It was a shock to you that SO15 counter-terrorism officers were the people who were supposed to be concerned with this matter and that led you to think, as you said in your memorandum, about Islamist or Irish terrorism although it had been made clear to you that the offence being considered was conspiring to commit misconduct in public office. I am assuming—tell me if I am wrong—that that did not deflect you from thinking this must be a terrorism-related matter?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: It was frightening to hear about a terrorism group. Some of you are lawyers here but I do not know about the offences that are there. I now understand that it is a catch-all offence, but this was misconduct in public office and terrorism. Bear this in mind: I know we are in public here but it was only about two years previous to that that a study was embarked upon by Downing Street to have a high court judge investigate the Wilson Doctrine and that high court judge came to me and said, "I want the Wilson Doctrine to be lifted in the Palace of Westminster." I said, "You are not on, I am not doing that," and he said, "Just you remember that I am telling you as a judge that Members of Parliament can get into difficulties and can be involved in illegal organisations," so that was what was put to me two years ago. In fact, so insistent was he about the Wilson Doctrine, which is about telephone tapping, I had to involve the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott and say, "John, get this man off my back. He is not going to do this." These are things that the House did not know because it was done without the knowledge of the House. Bear this in mind: there are in the House, correct me if I am wrong, six Members of Parliament who belong to a party—and thank God there is peace in Northern Ireland—that approved of terrorism in its manifesto. They do not come on the floor of the House because they will not take the Oath.[1] So when somebody mentions terrorism and a terrorism squad, it did cause me a great deal of concern.

  Q138 Sir Alan Beith: Here we are in a situation where you did not know who the Member was but a reference had been made to counter-terrorism. It seems to me there are two possible reactions to this. One is to say, "If it is as serious as that, I think I should know more about it." The other is to feel so inhibited that you felt you ought not at that stage to enquire further. Was your reaction one or other of those two reactions?

  Lord Martin of Springburn: My reaction was that I needed more information. The worry I had also—and when you are told things of this serious nature there are all sorts of things going through your mind—is that I always feel that Speaker should have a pastoral role, if that is the right word to use. Members of Parliament can have personal problems and you want to help. I remember a political colleague being arrested a long time ago—thank God it does not happen all that often—and I remember an older councillor at the time saying the thing I want to do is to see what I can do to help, meaning to help the person and their family through the difficulty. The danger you would have is that you had a live investigation going on and perhaps rather than helping I would be seen to be hindering what was a live investigation. I then would have sought more information as to the person involved.

  Q139  Mr Howard: Lord Martin, you have explained to Sir Alan why on 26 November you did not ask the Clerk for his advice or ask the Serjeant whether she asked the Clerk for his advice. One of the reasons you gave was that on 26 November you were not certain whether there was going to be an arrest. You were told there might be an arrest.

  Lord Martin of Springburn: I was told there was a live investigation.

1   Five Sinn Féin Members elected to the House in 2005 (Messrs Adams, Doherty, McGuinness, Murphy and Ms Gildernew) have not taken their seats. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 22 March 2010