Localism - Communities and Local Government Committee Contents

3  Central government in a localist system

Will Government prove able to rein itself in?

49. For a localist ethos to take root, central government—both Ministers and civil servants—must voluntarily refrain from intervention in issues that are properly the purview of local agencies.[80] Professors George Jones and John Stewart among others were sceptical about the sustainability of such a 'hands off' mentality in Whitehall:

    Past experience shows it is easier to announce a policy of decentralisation than to ensure it happens. The reasons lie in the working of central government departments. Even when the initial policy is accompanied by measures of decentralisation it is not long before the operations of departments reassert the dominant centralist approach. Michael Heseltine, when Secretary of State for the Environment (1979-83) held 'a bonfire' of 300 controls. Over time new central controls more than replaced the number abolished.[81]

Professors Jones and Stewart went on to diagnose some of the tendencies that can make Whitehall resistant to localism: each department's own policies being prioritised above a general policy of decentralisation, lack of confidence in local government on the part of "an elitist civil service", failure to consider the cumulative effect of all Government decisions on local authorities, and the privileging of accountability to the department rather than to local electorates. Baroness Eaton, Chair of the Local Government Association, evinced a certain suspicion of the civil service mindset, even when answering to Ministers who are avowed localists: "Sometimes we wonder whether the advice is perhaps as flexible as ministerial thinking".[82]

50. Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP and Rt Hon Nick Herbert MP, respectively Minister for Employment and Minister for Policing, told us that they had not encountered any cultural resistance from their officials to the decentralisation agenda, although the latter admitted it could be challenging for the Home Office to identify areas in which power could be exercised other than by the Department.[83] Mr Herbert commented that old habits die hard, even outside the ranks of the civil service: "We often find that the police service asks Ministers to intervene and do things and prescribe because that is the world they are used to".[84] Secretary of State Eric Pickles told us in September 2010 that cultural change in DCLG was a work in progress: "I think our officials are in a different place in terms of decentralisation than when I and my colleagues first arrived. There is no criticism meant there at all, but to push power down does mean that you yourself are going to lose influence."[85]

51. For Ministers, as well as the temptation to retain levers of influence, there can be powerful political counterweights to decentralisation.[86] Think tank IPPR North argued that

    Perhaps the most important barrier to localism in Britain is a political culture which tends to hold Ministers responsible for all actions of 'the government' most broadly conceived. Local problems often result in the desire to 'hang the Minister'. The most obvious example of this is in the health service where the Secretary of State is expected to answer for every hospital infection or dirty ward. The reasons for this are complex. In part this is because the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is deeply ingrained in the national psyche; it is partly because central government fails to exercise restraint, and wades into arguments and it is partly because it is not obvious who is to blame if it is not the Minister, and the lines of accountability are too opaque.[87]

Oxfordshire County Council posed the question:

    What will any Minister do when a journalist calls him about a spending decision made at a local government level and which the journalist brands as evidence of a postcode lottery? If the Minister reaches for a telephone to instruct the local council to conform to a national template, localism is lost.[88]

Parliament, too, is culpable. MPs and Opposition spokespeople frequently ask Ministers to answer for issues that are strictly operational or local in scope.[89] This can set a tone for debate within which recourse to localism becomes politically very difficult. Our predecessors concluded in their report on the balance of power between central and local government that MPs should set themselves a higher threshold before raising and debating essentially local matters on the floor of the House.[90]

52. Thus far, despite its localist rhetoric, this Government has not escaped criticism for a tendency to interfere in local matters, particularly in the way councils are run.[91] The performance of waste collection services in wintry weather, the salaries awarded to senior officers, and the fate of a house in which Ringo Starr once lived are all matters on which DCLG Ministers have sought to exercise influence or make known their disapproval.[92] Cllr Steve Reed deprecated the ministerial habit of "knee-jerk making of pronouncements on TV", complaining that

    it makes no sense to say you want localism, and then for the Secretary of State for Communities to say you must stick with the weekly waste collection, for instance. What if [...] a particular community would rather have fortnightly waste collection in order to spend some of that money on some other service that is more important to them? That might be youth services; it might be filling in potholes because the roads are substandard. Why is the Secretary of State telling that community they can't do it, if they want to do it?[93]

53. The Local Government Association has drawn attention to the number of points within the Localism Bill at which powers are reserved to the Secretary of State, arguing that this is contradictory in a piece of legislation which is supposed to be about divesting central government of power.[94] By the LGA's count, there are 142 such instances in the Bill.[95] Baroness Eaton commented:

    Some of the things that are coming up from those are, for example, around the referendums. The Secretary of State has the ability to decide what is localist—what is a local issue. That is the top telling local people what are the important local issues. To me, that seems a very inconsistent and unnecessary potential order within the Minister's gift. [...] A lot of the things referred to are very, very local, like community assets. The Secretary of State decides what is an asset of community value. I would have thought that the people in my ward are more likely to know what is a valuable asset to the community than the Secretary of State.[96]

54. In a previous report, we criticised changes to the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity on the grounds that they run counter to the principles of localism by prescribing how local authorities conduct their own business.[97] The Minister for Housing and Local Government, Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, disagreed that issuing such a Code was an anomalous move for a Government so committed to decentralisation:

    perhaps most people misunderstand what is meant by localism. It does not mean, for example, that Government simply ignores what is going on and turns a blind eye to reality on the ground; it actually means that the Government puts in place a framework to make sure that localism can flourish.[98]

Exactly where the dividing line is between 'putting in place a framework' and unwarranted interference has not been explicitly defined; it appears at the moment simply to be a product of the objectives the Government wishes to achieve. Suspicion is thereby fuelled that the Government will continue to intervene when councils and other local bodies exercise new or existing freedoms to act in a way that excites its disapproval.[99] There is a trade-off between populism and localism.

55. One example is the debate about how local authorities should use funds that were formerly ring-fenced but have now been rolled into the general Area-Based Grant. These include Supporting People grants for housing-related support for vulnerable adults. In December 2010, Secretary of State Eric Pickles told us

    You will no doubt recall that for the past couple of years the programme has been ring-fenced, but within the Department's DEL[100] as opposed to local government DEL. All we did was simply to take it to its next logical step and say, 'Well, actually, local government has ownership of that.' I am aware of some places in the country that are taking significant cuts in Supporting People—I completely deprecate that. But most local authorities are protecting the scheme, not just to help vulnerable people but because it also makes enormous economic sense. One of the consequences of localism is that you have to allow local communities to make decisions about where that spending goes. Most sensible local authorities will come to the conclusion that £1 spent on Supporting People will probably save them £5 or £6 further down the line. […] It would be a brave local authority that cut Supporting People, protected the centre and continued to have very large middle-management costs.[101]

Grant Shapps concurred that "the idea that local authorities should use Supporting People as their front line for reductions is completely against everything that we would expect to see". The Secretary of State concluded: "In short, while we would not make this a general rule, we are happy to offer a degree of guided localism".[102]

56. We asked Greg Clark whether there would be a cultural change within Government so that Ministers would not continue to castigate local authorities for making the 'wrong' decisions. He said:

    I think it is the right thing to decentralise and not respond to every situation by taking yet more powers to the centre. But does that mean you do not have an opinion on things and you regard anything that is ever done as being for the best in the best of all possible worlds? Clearly not. What the Secretary of State has said on occasions, whether it is do with bins or whatever, is to express his view, but you will notice that he has not taken a power to require weekly bin collections. […] All of us in public life are elected to give an opinion on things, especially if we see things that could be done better.[103]

57. Ministers must rein in their interventionist instincts if the Government's localism agenda is to be credible. Central government cannot have it both ways—on the one hand giving local authorities the freedom to make their own choices, and on the other maintaining that only one of those choices is the 'sensible' one. The Government must make its own choice: does it wish local authorities to exercise local discretion, or does it want to continue to prescribe and recommend courses of action centrally? The litmus test of localism will be the Government's reaction to local decisions with which it disagrees. The concept of 'guided localism' is an unhappy compromise which is neither helpful to local authorities nor as radical as the Government seems content to believe.

58. Ministers are not alone in needing to curb their appetite for intervention. Changing the cultures of the civil service and of Parliament to support a more localist system will be crucial. The former will be decisive in ensuring that Ministers' intentions are put into practice, and the latter in altering the parameters of debate to reflect the distribution of powers to local agencies. Opposition spokesmen, too, bear some responsibility for ensuring that central government is not tempted to interfere beyond its proper remit.

Setting limits to localism

59. Although the balance of opinion among our witnesses was clearly in favour of devolving more power to local level, a significant minority disagreed with the idea that central government should retreat entirely from local affairs. Their worry was not that the Government's interpretation of localism would be too timid or half-hearted, but that the Government would in fact follow its intentions to their logical conclusion. A range of organisations representing the interests of vulnerable, marginalised or minority groups expressed fears that a decentralised system in which 'bureaucratic accountability' mechanisms had been dismantled would leave services for such groups at the mercy of the vagaries of local politics and funding choices made under the pressure of cuts.

60. It was argued by these groups that sections of the community that are small in population terms, politically invisible or unpopular, or that are not geographically concentrated, lack recourse to the ballot box as an alternative form of accountability.[104] Examples included gypsies and travellers, sex workers, rough sleepers, and young people seeking an exit from gang culture.[105] Distrust of local electoral accountability was expressed most pointedly by supported housing provider Cosgarne Hall:

    Services like ours, which are mainly about providing support and accommodation for chronic alcoholics and drug addicts, are seen by many as helping people who do not deserve help. [...] at election time, the candidate who announced that his policy was to close hostels for alcoholics and drug addicts, to get rid of inmates and cut the council tax, might stand a good chance of dislodging a responsible councillor from his seat in a marginal ward.[106]

61. Age UK pointed out that, when given the chance to set their own priorities in the past, for example by selecting Local Area Agreement indicators, most local authorities have not chosen to prioritise the needs of older people.[107] David Congdon of Mencap told us

    The concern is that when decisions are taken at a local level, they are inevitably based on pressures at a local level. People at a local level—councillors, in particular—know best what needs to be done in their area, but there is a danger that minority-group interests can be missed out, although that does not necessarily have to occur. The generalised example that I would give is that things that are very visible tend to be […] the things that will be protected. I probably shouldn't mention street cleaning in the current climate, with snow all over the pavements, but things like that are very visible, as are things like town centre environmental issues. If the eligibility criteria for social care services to individuals with, say, a learning disability are cut, and those individuals see their day activity decline from, say, five days a week to three days a week, the only people who know about that are the individuals concerned and their families. That is the danger. A general point would be that, with increasing localism, there is a need to have mechanisms in place—a framework for accountability is the sort of thing we need. It is very hard to define exactly what that should contain, but we need something to ensure that, as far as possible, what the Government will through funding—most funding for local authorities comes from Government—actually gets delivered at a local level.[108]

62. The current imperative for austerity could leave vulnerable groups in a precarious position if they are seen as a soft target, particularly when the relevant services were not prescribed by a statutory duty.[109] There was concern, too, that local authorities would choose to cut services whose overall benefits are felt only on a national scale or to other service providers, or preventative services whose benefits are realised only over the long term.[110] Sitra, a membership organisation for supported housing providers, argued that

    decentralisation has not led to more effective public service delivery of housing-related support. It is our contention that those groups of people who are in receipt of non-statutory services are significantly worse off as these services are being reduced or cut in order for local authorities to make savings.[111]

Chief Executive Vic Rayner called the removal of the ringfence around Supporting People funding "a kind of microcosm of the impact of localism", with bleak ramifications for the future.[112] She reasoned that policies could be attuned to local circumstances without central government washing its hands of responsibility for what happens locally.[113] Others expressed the opinion that it is entirely legitimate for Government to dictate how certain monies are spent in the pursuit of particular policy goals.[114] Sense, which represents deaf-blind people, argued that there is already too much local scope for local variation, with each local authority being able to set their own threshold for social care services which substantially affect quality of life.[115] The Audit Commission noted that the public considers national levels of quality and cost to be desirable in the case of services whose users have little or no choice, such as social care.[116]

63. Organisations representing vulnerable or minority groups, therefore, commonly argued that a degree of continuing centralised control and prescription was essential.[117] The removal of the Comprehensive Area Assessment and the prospect of fewer national indicators were a cause for concern.[118] They favoured clear national policies, whose implementation would be monitored by the Government, quality control and inspection regimes and continued ring-fencing of funding streams (or at least transparency about specific allocations). Local authorities, by contrast, have by and large welcomed promises that the machinery of central oversight will be dismantled. The scrapping of the Comprehensive Area Assessment was popular with councils; Staffordshire County Council claimed that this move "indicates that the Government is prepared to shift responsibility away from nationally-imposed regimes and towards the local government sector".[119] Voice4Change England and Urban Forum conceded that a focus on top-down targets had in the past produced some unintended adverse consequences, and welcomed the opportunity to put new emphasis on the views of service users within

    a new framework for performance management […] where service providers are answerable to local citizens and service users, rather than to national government; that safeguards against service failure and against discrimination; and where citizens have a clear understanding of what they can expect, and what to do when things go wrong. Monitoring of standards to assure quality should be done through involvement of service users, residents and peer review. [...] This is not to say that there need not be accountability to central government. Central government's role in this new framework should be to provide minimum standards in core areas, and ensure regulatory compliance, including equality and human rights requirements in law and robust use of Equality Impact Assessments to ensure decisions about resources and policy development are made with consideration of the needs of all sections of the community, including the most disadvantaged and marginalised.[120]

64. Groups speaking on behalf of vulnerable people were not the only ones concerned about the potential impact of a more laissez-faire attitude from central government to local affairs. Ben Kernighan of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations was anxious about how it would affect the influence exerted by and the resources available to voluntary sector organisations:

    In terms of the arguments around localism, CLG is now saying, 'We're sorry, this is a new era; we can't instruct local authorities what to do about [ensuring Local Enterprise Partnerships involve the voluntary sector].' If there is too much of 'we can't instruct' or 'we can't set out advice', then in many areas both the voluntary and community sectors will do much worse. It is not a party political point. We looked at where cuts have taken place, and discovered that there are good local authority areas and poor ones—it does not cover party boundaries. Following the useful comment by the Prime Minister urging local authorities not to cut [funding to the voluntary sector], some have not done so but others have made massive cuts, before the Comprehensive Spending Review.[121]

Mr Kernighan argued that a strong Compact is important in ensuring that the voluntary sector is treated fairly by different local authorities, but existing Compacts are of variable effectiveness.[122] The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations argued that "central government must retain its oversight over the actions of individual local authorities to ensure against unjustified local agendas or malpractice" in their treatment of the voluntary sector.[123] Secretary of State Eric Pickles announced in April 2011 a "social responsibility deal" for councils, proposing that they avoid disproportionate reductions in funding for the voluntary sector, or give three months' notice and enter into discussions about how the service can evolve if cuts are made.[124]

65. The implications of greater local discretion also worried representatives of the business sector. The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) foresaw "the emergence of damaging differences between areas in terms of environments conducive to business growth".[125] Matthew Pinner of the FSB told us, "business likes certainty and consistency [...] a level playing field".[126] The British Retail Consortium commented that "local variations in some policy areas could significantly increase the regulatory and administrative burdens for business".[127] These bodies therefore argued that it was important to retain strong central government oversight and leadership; of local government performance generally, with regard to planning and infrastructure, and over policy objectives regarded as difficult to achieve on a local basis, such as environmental sustainability.[128]

66. The single greatest concern of business organisations was the possibility that local authorities might be given more powers to raise revenue by setting their own business rates.[129] The Federation of Small Businesses argued that "the present models of accountability at local level would be insufficient to create the necessary safeguards required for this level of decentralisation".[130] The issue of accountability for decision making and spending at local level, said the FSB,

    is of vital significance to local businesses. Although local residents will have a redress through the democratic process, this is not an avenue directly available to business […] it is vital that mechanisms are put in place to ensure that the business voice is heard.

67. As a way of mitigating the risks of unacceptably poor service, counterproductive inconsistency or neglect of the vulnerable, many organisations advocated adoption of some sort of national minimum standards for services.[131] Local authorities tended to emphasise that minimum standards should be framed at a very high strategic level, and to focus on outcomes, leaving considerable leeway for councils in how they set out to meet them.[132] Dr Andrew Povey, Leader of Surrey County Council, told us that the role of central government in a localised system is

    to set the framework and the overall direction. You are a set of politicians, so you have a set of priorities; that is what you should be setting out for us to deliver within our own local frameworks. [...] You have to set out themes, if you like, rather than detail.[133]

68. A contrasting view was offered by Westminster City Council Leader Colin Barrow, who said that those who thought local government should follow a uniform set of standards were "the enemies of localism".[134] Andy Sawford, Director of the Local Government Information Unit, commented that the imposition of any sort of standards or outcome targets would in all likelihood "feel to local councillors much like the performance system that we're all celebrating the removal of".[135] Steve Freer, Chief Executive of CIPFA, told us that it was "proper" to institute national standards across a range of services, but that

    the critical issue is to what extent you then put in place arrangements to try to performance manage those standards and ensure that they are applied on the ground from Land's End to John O'Groats, as it were. [...] I think that the challenge for us is to step back from over-elaborate arrangements for monitoring and to try to get back to the sort of fundamentals of trusting local accountability to tell us whether appropriate standards are being delivered on the ground.[136]

69. One of the key tests of the Government's localist credentials will be the attitude that it takes to the risk of failure in local services.[137] Will it in fact be willing to trust in local accountability to hold service providers to appropriate standards? Certainly central government will have to let go of certain assumptions about uniformity of service delivery and the ability to replicate successful models nationwide—assumptions that may always have been false but are nonetheless beguiling.[138] Several witnesses argued that the risk of failure must be accepted as inherent in decentralisation. Cllr Steve Reed told us that "if you want to find out new ways of doing things that will work, you have to allow for new ways of doing things that will fail. As long as the failure isn't repeated but is learned from".[139] Professors George Jones and John Stewart wrote that "the guiding principle should be that central government should intervene only when there is a clear national interest requiring action. This action by central government should require explicit justification".[140]

70. We have been conducting a separate inquiry on the subject of the audit and inspection of local authorities, following the Government's decisions first to discontinue the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) and then to abolish the Audit Commission. CAA and its predecessors were the principal means by which the previous Government sought to ensure that local authorities were delivering services of a sufficient standard and were pursuing further improvement. The inspection regime was much criticised for being over-bearing and too interventionist, and its demise has not been greatly lamented. Nevertheless we recognise that the Government has both a continuing duty to ensure proper accountability for public money and a legitimate interest in promoting better value for money, and whatever the new audit environment looks like, it will need to reflect that. We will consider this issue in greater detail in a forthcoming Report.

71. Others saw central government continuing to act as a failsafe. Cllr Richard Kemp accepted that Government "needs to have at minimum a step-in power of enforcement" where sector-led support had failed to improve unacceptably poor standards.[141] Professor Michael Chisholm, Professor Steve Leach and Dr Mark Roberts envisaged a role for both central and local government in "protecting localities from the most severe consequences of failure and enabling them to learn from their mistakes."[142]

72. If the direction of travel is away from 'bureaucratic' accountability and towards local, democratic accountability, the arguments we have heard for continuing central control indicate that democratic accountability needs to be greatly strengthened in order to command confidence. London Civic Forum talked about ways in which performance evaluation could involve citizens and service users.[143] Dr Rob Berkeley, Director of the Runnymede Trust, reported that

    We had an extensive structure of race equality councils across the country. In 2007 there were 100, now they are down to 42 and they seem to be declining. [...] I am keen to go with the spirit and suggest that localism can deliver, given local accountability to local citizens, but the structures need to be in place. I suspect that they are not currently. I do not hear any plans to support and establish those local organisations that might begin to hold local authorities to account a bit more on equality.[144]

73. One specific tool for local accountability which has received little attention in the Government's localism agenda is council overview and scrutiny. Local authorities themselves, and others, viewed effective scrutiny by non-executive councillors as a necessary complement to greater local discretion and less central oversight.[145] The Centre for Public Scrutiny argued that as an accountability mechanism, the scrutiny function is credible, legitimate and proven to have genuine impact on services.[146] Councillors acting in this official capacity arguably stand a much better chance than an informed minority of public 'armchair auditors' of making effective use of spending data.[147] Scrutiny is a way of addressing performance that is more public-facing than, for example, peer review, and several organisations pointed out that its scope could be broadened to involve other stakeholders alongside elected members.[148] Suggestions for further enhancing the function included formal involvement of the voluntary and community sector, perhaps by establishing independent, community-based scrutiny officers.[149] It is a cause of concern to some, therefore, that the Localism Bill contains measures to enable local authorities to revert to the committee system that preceded statutory overview and scrutiny functions.[150] On the other hand, Unison argued that scrutiny has been under-resourced and too subject to political control by the majority party. It welcomed the prospect of a return to the committee system on the grounds that this might enable individual councillors to develop a deeper knowledge of the services they are expected to scrutinise.[151]

74. Localism has its critics, and they have legitimate concerns: about fairness, about the need to safeguard vulnerable people, and about services underperforming. Some stakeholders and sections of the community evidently do not trust the present forms of local democratic accountability to look after their interests when the apparatus of centralised, bureaucratic accountability is dismantled. We recommend that the Government consider how best to help these groups use the available means for holding their local service providers to account, beyond the ballot box. In particular, the Government must address the contribution to accountability that can be made by robust—and if necessary enhanced—local authority scrutiny functions.

75. We accept the case for some form of minimum national standards in services such as adult social care and child protection, where the needs of the most vulnerable must be protected. We recommend that where such standards are adopted they are formulated in consultation with local government, in order to ensure that they reflect the level of central government oversight appropriate to a localist system and do not simply recreate an overly-interventionist performance regime.

76. We recommend that the Government make clear the principles on which it will determine at what level different decisions will be made, and the grounds on which intervention in local services will be deemed necessary. These questions should not be decided purely on a case-by-case basis. Communities need clarity about which decision-makers they should be seeking to influence, and an explicit statement of the Government's intent would help to forestall campaigning groups' reliance on national government to enforce acceptable standards of service. A constitutional commitment to decentralisation would be one way of achieving this clarity; in the shorter term, we will expect the forthcoming progress report on localism in each department to be an opportunity to flesh out the principles on which the departments are expected to act.

80   Ev 212, w215 Back

81   Ev 140 Back

82   Q 348 Back

83   Q 403 Back

84   Q 404 Back

85   Oral evidence, 13 September 2010, HC 453-i, Q 7 Back

86   Ev 265-6 Back

87   Ev 159 Back

88   Ev w93-4 Back

89   Qq 10, 404 Back

90   CLG Committee, The Balance of Power, para 137 Back

91   Q 266 Back

92   "Minister Bob Neill angry at councils' rubbish 'complacency'", BBC News online, 5 January 2011; "Time to halt council chiefs' gravy train", Daily Telegraph, 5 June 2010; "Let it be", Daily Telegraph, 2 January 2011 Back

93   Q 19 Back

94   Ev 258 ff. Back

95   Q 337 Back

96   Q 353 Back

97   Communities and Local Government Committee, First Report of Session 2010-11, Proposed Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, HC 666, para 53 Back

98   CLG Committee, Local Authority Publicity, para 48 Back

99   Ev 140, 151 Back

100   Departmental Expenditure Limits Back

101   Oral evidence, 21 December 2010, HC 699-i, Q 86 Back

102   Oral evidence, 21 December 2010, Q 85 ff. Back

103   Q 562 Back

104   Q 141, Ev w84, w192 Back

105   Ev 207, w45 Back

106   Ev w86 Back

107   Q 215 Back

108   Q 213 Back

109   Q 141, Ev 204, 208, w79, w84, w155 Back

110   Ev 207, w84 Back

111   Ev 206 Back

112   Q 213 Back

113   Q 217 Back

114   Ev w88 Back

115   Ev w2 Back

116   Ev 220 Back

117   Ev 203, 209, w2, w17, w155, w200 Back

118   Ev w169 Back

119   Ev 235 Back

120   Ev w221 Back

121   Q 134 Back

122   Q 138, Ev w136 Back

123   Ev 166 Back

124   "Action to boost support for voluntary sector and cut red tape for councils", Department of Communities and Local Government press notice, 13 April 2011 Back

125   Ev 167 Back

126   Q 160 Back

127   Ev 168 Back

128   Ev 167, 168, 170-1, 173 Back

129   Q 168 ff., Ev 167, 169, 173 Back

130   Ev 167 Back

131   Ev 195, w192 Back

132   Qq 112, 324, Ev 157 Back

133   Q 324 Back

134   Q 3 Back

135   Q 112 Back

136   Q 235 Back

137   Ev 151 Back

138   Q 90, Ev 195 Back

139   Q 10 Back

140   Ev 138-9 Back

141   Q 43 Back

142   Ev w22 Back

143   Ev 181 Back

144   Q 218 Back

145   Ev 190, 252, w2-3, w62, w83 Back

146   Ev 211 Back

147   Ev 214, 217, w82 Back

148   Ev 90, w66, w223 Back

149   Ev w179 Back

150   Ev 213, w106, 108 Back

151   Ev w197 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 9 June 2011