Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Incapacity Bill Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)



  Q120  Lord Rix: Speaking personally, it certainly happens in my case, but it obviously does not happen in yours.

  Ms Willmington: There should always be the opportunity for the individual concerned to state who they want, so obviously there may be times when they should not be and actually it is appropriate for them not to be involved. I think our concern, particularly with older people, is that reviews tend to be very much paper exercises that happen often in offices and do not really tend to consult people in a way that we would want. Now, somebody who has got full capacity and is articulate can challenge it, but somebody without capacity in that sort of situation does not have the recourse to challenge it.

  Q121  Baroness Barker: Turning to lasting powers of attorney, in your submission the use of the word "parameters" rather suggests to me that you are not happy about the way in which this particular section has been drafted. I have noted in your submission that you have talked about issues such as checks and balances and tests of the immediate risk that we were talking about a moment ago. I suppose the issue that I want to focus on is the one that you have led us to which is really about the way in which lasting powers of attorney would be triggered, when and how. Clearly you do think that, as drafted, the lasting powers of attorney are too wide, so I suppose the logical question is how would you see them more closely defined?

  Mr Evers: I am not sure if we necessarily think that the scope of the LPA, as drafted, is too wide. It is certainly appropriate in the sense that it covers a donor's personal welfare, property and specified matters. People will want to be able to choose the powers they require and this really also enables the donor to appoint more than one person to act for them both individually, jointly or jointly and severally, so I think that there are some controls in that sense. We would certainly like clarification on the parameters of LPAs and, for example, clarification in relation to clauses 16 and 17 in the Bill on personal welfare, property and affairs, so some further discussion and clarification in relation to that list would be helpful.

  Q122  Baroness Barker: Bearing that in mind, do you think that the exclusions as to who could be appointed an attorney are sufficient or not?

  Ms Willmington: We basically would like to see some additions to that. One is that we feel there should be a duty on the court of protection to investigate if there are any potential conflicts of interest. An example that springs into my head is an example of a care home owner who takes out LPAs on all of their residents. At some point there has got to be something that triggers some concern about that because of the concern about undue influence, so we think that the court of protection should have that duty. We would also like there to be some sort of duty about them determining the appropriateness of the person in terms of checking against criminal record checks and also about the local authority, in the process of establishing the covert protection for vulnerable adults list, listing people who would be inappropriate then to act as LPAs, so obviously we would like to see that included as well.

  Q123  Baroness Barker: Moving on from that, do you think it is right for a non-medically qualified attorney to override a professional clinical judgment or would you think that such decisions being made would be within the confines of what you have described as a case conference?

  Mr Goss: I could comment on that one, if I may. I think the main point to keep in mind is that clinical judgment has its limitations. It is only a judgment and may not even lead to the desired clinical outcome, so bearing in mind that clinicians are rarely in a position to know the values or priorities and life experience of a particular patient, we think that the lasting power of attorney, if given that authority, should be allowed to override clinical judgment.

  Mr Foster: The issue is the difference that we would see between the LPA and the general authority. The LPA is the person who is specifically chosen, an individual to represent their views and their interests and, therefore, we would be in favour of that person being authorised to make the sort of judgments that the individual would themselves make if they had the capacity to do so in that situation. Whereas the doctor might say, "This treatment is plainly in your best interests", I, as an individual, can say, "Well, thanks, I hear that, but I don't want it", and we think that is a reasonable distinction to make for the attorney as well.

  Q124  Baroness Barker: I suppose a concern I want to follow up is that given that an LPA would have both financial and welfare elements to it as opposed to the old restriction, that opens up the potential for different people, for example, your example of care home owners, to have an interest in this that they would not have done under the old system. I wonder whether based on the old system of enduring powers of attorney you think that there needs to be a higher level of qualification for those acting as attorneys or not.

  Mr Evers: Possibly introducing a higher level of qualification would be helpful, but one of the other proposals in the Bill which would act as a check is the requirement to notify an additional third person beyond the donor and the donee, so that should provide some extra safeguards as well.

  Mr Goss: I think this is a good point. We would be very inclined to advise donors that it would be essential to think very carefully if they want a lasting power of attorney to have both a financial and a welfare voice on their behalf or appointing two people for the separate roles. I think this is probably wise for many people and of course you can get the situation where there will be an overlap. For example, if it comes up that you have to sell your house to finance care home costs, then it would need to be a joint decision if you have appointed two LPAs.

  Q125  Mr Burstow: I just wanted to pick up issues around conflicts of interest, particularly where there were both financial and welfare responsibilities being given, and I take the point which has just been made in response to the last question. The scenario I had in mind was one where the local authority is given either responsibilities as an appointed deputy or a hospital is the LPA. The local authority as a whole has a fiduciary duty to its local taxpayers to get the best for its revenues and it also has the legal right to have regard for its resources when it makes decisions about care services. How could a conflict arise between those duties and the duty that this Bill would confer upon a local authority if it took on a deputy or an LPA responsibility?

  Ms Thompson: I suspect that a local authority would only take on a deputy role because currently local authorities do not become enduring powers of attorney. I think there is a real issue here and there always has been an issue in relation to local authorities acting as receiver when they are both the collector of finances as well as making sure that the person does have their money and this has been a longstanding problem. I think it is an issue that really does need to be looked at very carefully when we are dealing with both welfare and financial decisions when they do have such a vested interest in both and I think it is something that the Bill does need to address both in relation to local authorities and also in relation to those people who are perhaps going to be the attorney, have been chosen by the individual, but obviously are those people who are likely to benefit from the estate and there do need to be regular checks on how that is working and that is very much a court of protection/public guardian office role.

  Ms Willmington: I think our position is that we want more emphasis on reviewing and checks and balances and safeguards rather than carte blanche excluding groups of people because I think what we do want is people to be able to choose who they want as their LPA. Obviously in some groups they will actually want someone who works in the local authority, so we did not want just to say that no, we do not want these people, but it is about making sure that if there are these people with interests, there are sufficient reviews and checks and balances and safeguards so that that would be monitored and hopefully protected from.

  Mr Evers: We also understand that there are random checks on LPAs taking place in Scotland as the legislation has been introduced and that is something that could also be considered here.

  Ms Thompson: And also the requirement on an LPA to keep financial records as well so that those are there so that if there was a random check, there would have to be records to show how the money had been spent. I think there is another issue in relation to LPAs that although currently the list for EPAs is a long, long list of people they would have to contact, we do have some concerns about the Bill as it is currently written and we feel that there should be one other party notified on application because it could be so easy for there to be undue influence on the person who might be having an eye to the finances and is wanting to take over as an attorney and if there is nobody else contacted, then that could all go through and I certainly think that the public guardianship office does need to look very closely at those where there is no other person named. It is a question of how one actually does that and whether you could actually get a situation where the donor does have someone named that is checked without necessarily the donee knowing who that person is.

  Q126  Laura Moffatt: I just want to press you a little bit more on the concept of splitting the responsibilities of welfare and financial matters. I want to ask you to expand a little more on what you were talking about, having a proper appeal against an LPA by somebody who may have a temporary lack of capacity and then returns to capacity. Do you see a scenario, if you had a divided responsibility, where someone who is the subject of an LPA would say, "I think you made the right financial decisions for me, but I think you made the wrong welfare decisions"? It seems to me that there could definitely be some difficulty there. Perhaps I could just ask you to expand a bit on how you believe an appeal would work in that situation.

  Mr Evers: I think it is a very searching question and there is a lot more to be done on that. I do not think at the moment there are necessarily sufficient mechanisms in the Bill for relatives of somebody who subsequently becomes incapable to appeal. There are questions about whether they would have to go to court to revoke the LPA and, if so, what would the costs be of that. Again there are timing and support issues and I think that again is another argument for the need for advocacy support on it and issues like legal aid would also help. Arbitration is one possible solution to that, but I think there are a lot of questions which still need discussion around that.

  Ms Thompson: Also the very fact that you have fees for registration is going to raise issues. The idea is that an LPA would be registered normally before the person lacks capacity, so there are two issues about that. First of all, with the fees as they currently are, people might not be too keen on registering something which they might never need to use because they might never lack capacity, and they think they will leave it and they can register it if ever they do need it, so you are back to the old EPA issue about who decides when you lose capacity enough to get it registered. The second point is another financial issue of if it is registered, the banks on the whole will not be seeing the individual, whether or not they are dealing with the finances of somebody who has just given express permission for somebody to go out and get £1,000 out of their bank account and is perfectly capable of doing that or somebody who lacks capacity completely, whereas at the moment with the way that EPAs work now, the bank is aware when someone clearly lacks capacity, so I think there is a big issue around how the banks would deal with that.

  Mr Foster: To come back to the question you were asking about, challenging one decision rather than another, it seems to me that there are three areas of challenge. One is to say, "I actually have capacity to make my own decisions", and that is, I think, ultimately a matter for the court and in fact clause 22 of the draft Bill does talk about powers of the court in relation to the lasting power. The second would be the fitness of the person if you thought the individual was making a succession of decisions that you thought would instantly disqualify them. That is a more difficult issue and it would be hard to challenge on one small point. It may be necessary to lump them together and say, "This makes the person palpably unfit". At the moment the Bill has no mechanism for dealing with that. The third would be that if there was a major decision to be made, and this is what we talked about earlier on, what are the boundaries, if you like, and what should be referred to the court for a decision, like major invasive surgery as an obvious example and selling a house would be another.

  Q127  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder if you think there are sufficient checks and balances on the face of the Bill in relation to the powers of court-appointed deputies and, secondly, will the court of protection be sufficiently accessible to those with mental incapacity?

  Ms Willmington: It is very similar to what we said about the LPAs, that there should be a duty on the deputies to investigate conflicts of interest. We feel that also that needs to include the CRB checks and protection for vulnerable adults list. We also were concerned about the need or we felt there was a need for an independent assessment of capacity and one of the things that we did feel that was different from the LPAs was that actually deputies should not be able to make advance statements about the withdrawal of medical treatment, decisions to withdraw or withhold medical treatment. Whereas we felt we were happy with LPAs because they were nominated persons, with the deputies, because they were appointed by the court, we felt it would not be appropriate for them to make that decision.

  Ms Thompson: There is always a problem with the very word "court" in that people think courts are for particular issues. So the court of protection so far is not a court that is well known, so there are some real issues about making sure that people are aware that there is this court there, it is for them, it is accessible, and they are looking at it being locally accessible, and that should very much be made sure that people can actually access it and that again links back to the legal aid question because at the moment issues which go to the court of protection are not amenable to legal aid on the whole. So there is a real need for an advertising campaign about the court of protection and how it works and making it as user-friendly as possible and informal as possible as well because I think there are issues about people actually thinking that courts are frightening places. On how the court is monitored, I would certainly suggest that there should be something like a forum of people set up where the court does actually report on a regular basis as to how it is being used and report also to Parliament and that there is feedback from these organisations to make sure that there is proper use of the court and people are actually able to access it. That would be very much done using voluntary organisations as well keeping an eye on this.

  Ms Willmington: One of our concerns is that some of our suggestions mean that we would expect the court of protection to be very responsive and the time involved is going to be crucial in terms of how effectively people are going to use it. For example, we are suggesting that certain decisions be removed from the general authority and that becomes a single order of the court. One thing that we did suggest was a possibility is that if those decisions are not contested, whether that could be done by correspondence rather than an actual court appearance, so I think we were saying that decisions about responsiveness and timeliness will be actually really crucial in how effective this is going to be.

  Mr Foster: I don't think this is the Alliance's response, but I think the Bill itself necessarily requires a much greater development of the work of the court of protection. Speaking personally, I would be very happy to see some sort of local devolved jurisdiction for lesser decisions, sort of arbitration-type decisions, rather than necessarily troubling the High Court. I want to add one thing which is about advocacy and again we are coming back to the same issue. I think it is terribly important, and I have no doubt that members of the Committee are aware of this, the advocate's role is to help and support and it is not to provide formal legal representation. We would be very, very concerned if when the Bill went forward all the emphasis was put upon supporting advocacy and not on providing some sort of public funding for legal representation because they are two very distinct roles.

  Q128  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Speaking again on behalf of the severely intellectually disabled, supposing that the court has appointed a deputy over a family member who has been looking after his relative for a long time, but he is getting rather old himself and beginning possibly to face the next world, should there be a mechanism in the Bill for making sure that that system, whatever the way of life of that intellectually disabled relative might be, continues after the deputy dies or would it all have to go back to one of your case conferences?

  Ms Willmington: I am not sure we have actually discussed that scenario, to be perfectly honest.

  Q129  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Forgive me, but it is a scenario that is becoming very relevant because a lot of the bulge, parents, if you like, now are beginning to die off and this is a real problem we are going to be facing in quite large numbers in the next ten or 20 years.

  Ms Willmington: I think it is one of those opportunities where we see the role for advance statements because that is one way of people recording their wishes for as long as they need.

  Q130  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: This would be the deputy recording because the intellectually impaired person cannot.

  Ms Willmington: That is the difficulty, that there are always going to be people that this would not be appropriate for, but we would hope that at least some method would be made and hopefully with the aid of communication there should be at least some reference to preferences. One thing that we are really keen to say is that if people are actually unable to make decisions, it does not mean that they do not have a view and it is a difference between the two. It is still really important to record that view even if they are not able to make their own decisions and that is one of the crucial roles we found with the statements, so that could be the case in that situation, that the person might not be able to make decisions, but they can record a view and that view could be recorded and used in the future for ever.

  Mr Foster: As a mechanical footnote on that, there is provision already in the draft Bill, clause 19, for the court, when appointing one deputy, to provide for a substitute deputy as and when necessary which might be a helpful thing for people to use.

  Q131  Jim Dowd: Mr Foster, can I just bring you back briefly to a point you made a few moments ago. You drew the distinction between advocacy and legal representation. There will be occasions, I am sure, when advocates could provide legal representation, but do you think, for the sake of uniformity, that the two roles should be separated in all circumstances?

  Mr Foster: I have quite a strong view about this, advocacy in the mental health area, and in fact we have a database, coming back to Lord Rix's point, where we have tracked 460 separate mental health advocacy organisations, so there is quite a lot of work out there. I think this is the answer, but then I will be corrected if not, that we see the advocacy role as being one of essentially facilitating communication to assist the person to put forward their views or to establish what their views are and then relay them. In other words, it is largely a communication and assistance role. It is not a role to give advice or to take forward actions, if you like, on behalf of the person which the person has not themselves authorised or is not inherent in what the person has previously said. I can well imagine a situation, again speaking personally, where the advocate was sufficiently armed with information to be able to put forward what their client, if you like, would like to happen, but the client is not in a position to put that forward themselves, but I do think that is somewhat different from a lawyer arguing to a legal brief with a duty to the court in certain circumstances which might override the duties to the individual client. It is a slightly different role and I think the point I was making, and I think it is a very fair question, was that there may be a tendency for financial reasons to put the emphasis upon advocacy and downplay the necessity for publicly funded legal assistance and we think this would be a very sad thing and contrary to the civil rights of the individual.

  Q132  Jim Dowd: So you did separate the two specifically?

  Mr Foster: Yes, I think they are separate roles and an advocate could speak in a public forum such as a court or other tribunal on behalf of the client if they knew what the client's express wishes had been in an advance statement, for instance, or if they had had sufficient discussion to know what the client wanted to be said, but I think that is a very different matter from arguing points of law and I would say they are distinct roles.

  Q133  Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: The draft Bill does make provision for advance refusals, but it is silent on any other kind of advance statement. Do you think the Bill misses an important opportunity there to clarify the law in respect of other kinds of advance statement, or should that be left to be decided by the courts on a case-by-case basis? Can I add to that a separate, but importantly related question which is about registration. Whatever kind of advance decision the Bill eventually provides for, and at the moment it is only to do with the refusal of treatment, should those decisions be registered in writing? At the moment the Bill does not provide for that, but the question of whether or not it would be possible to establish the existence of an advance refusal without registration and written evidence seems to be a fairly obvious one.

  Dr McCulloch: I think the advance statements are very important as far as people's freedom and dignity are concerned when they have the opportunity to make a statement, when they have capacity and when they fear that they are going to lack capacity at some point in the future. We come across numerous cases where people recover capacity and things were done to them that they wished had not been done. A very simple example I came across recently was of a client who was involved with a service who was a strict vegetarian and who was fed meat during a period of incapacity and then was disgusted to find out that that had been the case because she had deep beliefs against it. If she had been given the opportunity to make a statement to that effect, she would clearly have done so, so I think it can refer to a number of issues where someone might wish to be proactive about stating something. Clearly in an example like that it should be possible for a service to provide a vegetarian diet. We are not talking about a massive expenditure of resources in order to enable that person's wishes to be met and it is very important for that person, so we would very strongly advocate that some kind of advance statement be possible.

  Q134  Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: Just to be clear, you mean that you believe that there should be something on the face of the Bill to that effect?

  Dr McCulloch: On the face of the Bill, yes, because I think at present clearly there is a common law ability to make an advance statement, but our experience as an organisation, and we have been undertaking research on this, is that there is not a very high degree of uptake by service users because they are sceptical because it is not enshrined in legislation and also that clinicians and care staff commonly disregard those statements also because they do not consider that they would have the weight or authority, so we think that there is enormous benefit from putting this on the face of the Bill. I think it would be a general view, but probably not an exclusive one, that that statement should usually be written down and placed in an appropriate place. Clearly some people may have capacity, but may not be able to write their own statement, in which case there needs to be a mechanism for the recording of that wish by another person.

  Mr Goss: I think you asked the question whether it is a missed opportunity not to have mentioned advance statements. The short answer is yes. We do think that those who wish to opt for all reasonable measures to be taken to prolong life must have an equal opportunity to make their views clear. This would not of course oblige doctors to use treatments they considered inappropriate, but would forestall misjudgments about quality of life issues. We believe that a request for treatment is just as important and relevant as a refusal in judging how best to care for an incommunicado patient. We want the Bill to embrace the needs of everyone, including those who want to be kept alive to the extent that its impact upon them is reasonable. We also believe that advance requests for treatment are a vital aid for the disabled in securing good care. Sadly, in our experience, from our helpline, e-mails and letters, some clinicians do deem the quality of life of the disabled less worthy of supporting. In terms of referral to the courts, statements are no different from a refusal in that disputes between interested parties at the end of the day have to be resolved in the courts. Now, as far as finding out the existence of either an advance statement or, more importantly perhaps, an advance refusal, we would confirm what my good friend has just said, that there ought to be a mechanism at least to lodge an advance refusal, particularly if it is made in writing, tape or audio form, and that there must certainly be an obligation on healthcare providers to check whether such a refusal exists. Refusal should not be invalid if not registered or lodged, but the education campaign should make clear the benefits of registering a written document. If the Bill is to achieve its purpose, it needs to minimise the scope for using administrative problems as an excuse to override a patient's instructions. Sadly, that does happen. An oral refusal should still be valid, provided it can be demonstrated that it is sustained and has been properly witnessed in the sense of having been heard, noted and logged. As to the question of how do you find out if you do not have a system for registering, which I think you asked about as well, the short answer is: with difficulty. We recommend a legal obligation on clinicians to check with a central registry or a place where they can be lodged, and this is in addition to checking with the individual's GP and nearest and dearest. Unfortunately some people have neither. As a last point, a central register would at least offer additional protection against failures to identify the patient's wishes or instructions.

  Ms Willmington: I would just add that making decisions has not actually gone as far as saying that we require a central registry. Our position was more that it needs to be logged and it needs to be logged with everybody involved in that person's care and we felt that the paperwork involved in a refusal should have a box which is ticked if there is an advance statement, so that should be part of the mechanism that it happens. We felt it was important as part of the law because we could then extend the clause which actually makes it a criminal offence to destroy or conceal an advance statement and that would give it much greater legal status and respect. We see it as a great opportunity for actually facilitating communication and discussion, that a lot of conflict results from situations which have not been discussed in advance or people have not communicated their wishes or views, so it is a great mechanism hopefully for preventing further conflict.

  Q135  Chairman: I do not know if you saw the interesting article in The Guardian a few weeks ago by Jane Campbell, whom you might know. As you know, she is very, very severely disabled and she went into hospital with pneumonia and she was really very seriously ill. The doctor said, "I presume that you will not want to be resuscitated", obviously referring to her condition and disability. If she had made an advance statement that she wished to have resuscitation, under the common law that would apply now, would it not?

  Ms Willmington: I think so, but I think our concern is that it would apply, but because it does not have the legal status and legal recognition, people would not actually feel obliged to act upon it.

  Mr Foster: At the moment in common law that is the case, yes, and the question is to what extent you regularise it and put it into statutory form. Then there is the second question which is the process to be gone through to approve that, but yes, you are absolutely right.

  Q136  Chairman: Presumably if in fact it was in the Bill and within the framework of law, then the doctors would not ask the question? They would not even assume that you would not wish to be resuscitated because the advance statement would have been made and protected in law.

  Ms Willmington: Absolutely, because they would be able to refer to this advance statement and the situation would never occur.

  Ms Thompson: I did actually see a film of Jane recently discussing that very point and it was incredibly powerful because she is a strong-minded lady and was too frightened to go to sleep because she was so worried about what they might do. I think if that could have reassured her, having it on the face of the Bill, knowing that she had got an advance statement would have made a big difference to her illness.

  Q137  Mrs Humble: Can I follow up the point about registering advance statements and where you would register them and the problems that there might be with regard to data-sharing and the civil liberties issues. There have been developments over recent years as there is more and more data-sharing between organisations, but there are quite clear civil liberties issues there. You mentioned, Kathryn, the fact that all the people involved in the care of that individual should know whether or not they have made an advance statement, but I will put to you the situation, representing, as I do, Blackpool where lots of people come for their holidays. There might be an individual coming, accompanied not by their regular carer, but by somebody else who may not know about any advance statement. If they are taken ill, they could go into an unfamiliar hospital and the only way that a surgeon there would know about an advance statement would be if there was a central registry and the whole issue then is accessing that information, so as to how detailed the information would be on that registry, should it be that Mr, Mrs or Miss X has registered an advance statement or should it include details of it? Would that surgeon instead be choosing to act under a general authority of what they believed was in the best interests of the individual even if his or her judgment on that best interest might actually be at variance with whatever is in the advance statement? It could be quite complex. Do you think that there should be some sort of central registry and, if so, how much information should be on it and what restrictions should there be about access to it?

  Ms Willmington: My understanding of our position as it stands is that we were talking about logging it and, therefore, logging it with the local care team. Really our concern was about data protection and how you would share that sort of information, but what we would be hoping is that people would then not only share that, but have that with them. Obviously there are always going to be situations then where they would be concerned about, "How will they know?" and I guess there is no definite resolution to that, but I think it is a double-edged sword. Do you go for a central registry and then have all the concerns about data protection? I do not know if people want to add to that.

  Mr Goss: I think this probably falls into the category of that famous phrase, "One of life's insoluble problems".

  Q138  Mrs Humble: But we are here to solve the problems and make recommendations.

  Mr Goss: I will rephrase it to "soluble opportunities". I will be advised by my many friends on this, but if it is right to lodge an LPA and you do not run into problems of confidentiality in finding out if a person has got one, I am a little bit pressed to see why you would run into problems with an advance statement. Just as a matter of interest, at the moment, because there is not this facility, though there is in many states in the United States, who have a central registry for advance refusals, there are people who lodge them with an organisation called Medic Alert. Now, Medic Alert, you will be familiar with, is this organisation that helps people who may fall over in their home and it warns the authorities. Well, they have provided a facility now where you can in fact lodge your advance refusal with them and they will supply you with a bracelet if you want that points out that you have an advance refusal or statement and how to get in touch and check it out.

  Q139  Chairman: I suppose if we ever did get to the point where we had the famous smart card with all of our medical history on, that would be the obvious place to put an advance refusal or an advance statement.

  Mr Goss: Yes, absolutely.

  Mr Foster: There are two possible ways through this. We have done a lot of work around confidentiality and data protection is a real issue, but with the move towards electronically held records, I think this is possibly a transitional point where in five years' time, I would imagine, a surgeon in Blackpool wishing to operate on somebody they do not know would call up the medical records and if there is an alert, saying, "Advance Directive—click here" or whatever it may be, that would allow it. There is just one point, if I may, on the question of registration. Ultimately there is going to be a question of evidence. Is this advance statement, advance refusal available and can people find out if it is? The fact that it is involved in a central registry or appears in someone's medical records will be helpful from that point of view, but ultimately if a person turns up, they have been knocked over and in their pocket is found a statement, saying, "In the event of my not having capacity, I absolutely refuse X, Y and Z", or, "Please give me whatever helps me", that must be given the same validity as something that is officially lodged, I would suggest.

previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 28 November 2003