Civil Registration Changes-A New Wrinkle?

Post by Liz
The full report should be available, maybe Fri 17th or Mon 20th Dec.
It seems to indicate that for whatever reasons these changes are not to
be railroaded through without proper debate ....
Watch that space. It may or may not be good news for us ....

Liz

I wonder if the unexpected popularity of the current BBC
series "Who Do You Think You Are" has convinced MPs that
the proposed civil registration changes just might lose
them some votes?

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

Liz

2004-12-13 09:42:46 UTC

Post by Brian Pears

Liz
I wonder if the unexpected popularity of the current BBC
series "Who Do You Think You Are" has convinced MPs that
the proposed civil registration changes just might lose
them some votes?

The thought did occur .... an average of 5 million viewers per programme
is v. substantial .... if you think of them as voters <g>

But I think the committee, as they are supposed to do, may actually have
listened to the various submissions and seem to have concluded that the
issue has broader implications that make the quickie form of pushing
through the legislation as favoured by the Government something of a
misuse of the intended function of their Committee..... which, as I
understand it, is meant to fast-track minor 'tidying up' legislation ...

It may be that someone has finally made the connection with Dirty Dave
Blunkett's ID cards and smelled a rat re civil liberties .....

I'm watching the space with some eagerness .....

Liz (Greenwich UK)

Phil Wood

2004-12-13 22:09:58 UTC

Post by Brian Pears

Liz
I wonder if the unexpected popularity of the current BBC
series "Who Do You Think You Are" has convinced MPs that
the proposed civil registration changes just might lose
them some votes?

The thought did occur .... an average of 5 million viewers per programme
is v. substantial .... if you think of them as voters <g>
But I think the committee, as they are supposed to do, may actually have
listened to the various submissions and seem to have concluded that the
issue has broader implications that make the quickie form of pushing
through the legislation as favoured by the Government something of a
misuse of the intended function of their Committee..... which, as I
understand it, is meant to fast-track minor 'tidying up' legislation ...
It may be that someone has finally made the connection with Dirty Dave
Blunkett's ID cards and smelled a rat re civil liberties .....
I'm watching the space with some eagerness .....

Maybe they have realised that the GRO is making loads of dosh selling old
certificates and that this income would be lost if the new regulations came
into force?

Phil

Roy Stockdill

2004-12-13 11:54:52 UTC

Post by Liz
This came to my attention on the London List ... A press release from
the Regulatory Reform Committee which has been looking at the changes to
Civil Registration we have much discussed here in the past>

I posted this news here last Thursday, following an announcement from
the FFHS who were appraised of the committee's decision the same day.

My reading is that the RRC has given the government a bloody nose and
refused to be bullied into sneaking through fast-track legislation on
something that is obviously very major league stuff indeed.

One wonders what all the months of consultation, etc, were for?
Didn't they take advice from government lawyers before they started
as to whether the biggest shake-up in civil registration since the
whole system was established in 1837 was really suitable for
Regulatory Reform Order legislation?

I think you may perhaps be right in another post about it having
something to do with "Dirty Dave's" draconian ID card proposals and,
yes, perhaps the popularity of the current BBC series.

The thought occurrs as to "who's in charge of the clattering
train?"!

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

Liz

2004-12-13 15:48:57 UTC

I posted this news here last Thursday, following an announcement from
the FFHS who were appraised of the committee's decision the same day.

Interesting ... last Thursday was the 9th .... my newsreader shows no
posts from you between the 7th and the 10th. Nor could I find it in
Google ..... but it *is* in the GENBRIT archive. And you only got one
response which also doesn't show in the newsgroup.

Is the gateway playing up again? Its very annoying that some of us
missed getting the information from you and others will wonder why I
felt it necessary to repeat it <g>

Liz (Greenwich UK)

Andrew Sellon

2004-12-13 16:27:32 UTC

From: "Liz" <***@dircon.co.uk>
[To Roy S]

<snip>
Is the gateway playing up again? Its very annoying that some of us
missed getting the information from you and others will wonder why I
felt it necessary to repeat it <g>

Or immediatly leap to the wrong conclusion!

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon East Anglia

Brian Pears

2004-12-15 20:40:43 UTC

Post by Roy Stockdill
I think you may perhaps be right in another post about it having
something to do with "Dirty Dave's" draconian ID card proposals and,
yes, perhaps the popularity of the current BBC series.
The thought occurrs as to "who's in charge of the clattering train?"!

Well not "Dirty Dave", he's resigned. I nearly cheered until I
heard who is tipped to replace him - Mr Charles "Top-Up-Fees"
Clarke.

And speaking of Blunkett - Private Eye gave him a roasting,
including:

The Important of Being Honest
To father one child by someone else's wife, Mr Blunkett, might be
considered a misfortune. To father two looks like carelessness.

Hunting with Dogs To Be Banned
... A leading campaigner, Mr Stephen Quinn, said, "In this day
and age it is outrageous that Home Secretaries should be allowed
to roam the country with their dog, trying to sniff out women
whom they can jump on and maul. ...

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

JJupar

2004-12-16 00:06:26 UTC

Subject: Re: Civil Registration Changes-A New Wrinkle?
Date: 15/12/2004 20:40 GMT Standard Time
The Important of Being Honest
To father one child by someone else's wife, Mr Blunkett, might be
considered a misfortune. To father two looks like carelessness.

Sounds like a woman scorned. There is a name for women like that who led men
on and then dropped them in it.

After all her husband couldn't do it so she got Blunkett to do it for him.

Judy

Liz

2004-12-16 06:35:19 UTC

Post by JJupar

Sounds like a woman scorned. There is a name for women like that who led men
on and then dropped them in it.

Well it can't be the 'tease' word because she definitely delivered. And
is about to 'deliver' again .....

Post by JJupar
After all her husband couldn't do it so she got Blunkett to do it for him.

And you know this for a fact? How? I think we should be told.

Liz (Greenwich UK)

CWatters

2004-12-13 13:24:27 UTC

Post by Liz
This came to my attention on the London List ... A press release
from the Regulatory Reform Committee which has been looking
at the changes to Civil Registration we have much discussed here
in the past.

Is there an English version of that press release? My Dutch isn't very good
:-)

Liz

2004-12-16 07:15:03 UTC

The report is now available at

Post by Liz
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/lddelreg.htm#reports

I've only had time for a skim-read but some of it is V.interesting.
Although the principal problem the committe have is procedural I am very
impressed that they seem to have taken on board so many of the
objections ... and that they do seem to feel that railroading was
taking place ....

At one point the proposers seem to say that this is not really a matter
for the general public to be concerned about and are answered with 'How
do the public know whether they are concerned if it is not to be debated
and discussed in the press etc?' And an implication that the public may
be rather pissed off when they have the details <g>

Knuckles were rapped for poor presentation, lack of proof-reading,
improper cross-referencing and general laziness in the proposals.
Typical of the arrogant way it was first presented to the genealogy
community, in my opinion. But they couldn't get away with it with this
lot <vbg>

I mean to go back and read it all slowly later .....

But I think it is definitely going to put a spanner in the works and may
delay things considerably .....

Liz (Greenwich UK)

Robin Harritt

2004-12-20 19:23:54 UTC

The report is now available at

Post by Liz
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/lddelreg.htm#reports

I've only had time for a skim-read but some of it is V.interesting.
Although the principal problem the committe have is procedural I am
very impressed that they seem to have taken on board so many of the
objections ... and that they do seem to feel that railroading was
taking place ....
At one point the proposers seem to say that this is not really a
matter for the general public to be concerned about and are answered
with 'How do the public know whether they are concerned if it is not
to be debated and discussed in the press etc?' And an implication that
the public may be rather pissed off when they have the details <g>
Knuckles were rapped for poor presentation, lack of proof-reading,
improper cross-referencing and general laziness in the proposals.
Typical of the arrogant way it was first presented to the genealogy
community, in my opinion. But they couldn't get away with it with this
lot <vbg>
I mean to go back and read it all slowly later .....
But I think it is definitely going to put a spanner in the works and
may delay things considerably .....
Liz (Greenwich UK)

That was I believe the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform

For those interested in the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee's Report
published today (20 December 2004) see

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdereg/118/11802.htm

Robin Harritt

http://harritt.net

Liz

2004-12-21 05:53:53 UTC

Post by Robin Harritt
That was I believe the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform

It was , indeed <g>

Post by Robin Harritt
For those interested in the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee's Report
published today (20 December 2004) see
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdereg/118/11802.htm

And a jolly good read it is. Expands very much on that right royal
rollocking for putting sloppy work before the committee ......

I still have to take some time to read details but so far I think it is
good that they seem to have taken seriously the very vague treatment of
funding for proper preservation of all the old material .....

How is it from the viewpoint of the adoption lobby, which I know is your
main interest, Robin?

Liz (Greenwich UK)

Robin Harritt

2004-12-21 09:26:54 UTC

Post by Robin Harritt
That was I believe the report of the House of Lords Select Committee
on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform

It was , indeed <g>

Post by Robin Harritt
For those interested in the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee's
Report published today (20 December 2004) see
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdereg/118/11802.htm

And a jolly good read it is. Expands very much on that right royal
rollocking for putting sloppy work before the committee ......
I still have to take some time to read details but so far I think it
is good that they seem to have taken seriously the very vague
treatment of funding for proper preservation of all the old material
.....
How is it from the viewpoint of the adoption lobby, which I know is
your main interest, Robin?
Liz (Greenwich UK)

Not sure about the rest of the adoption lobby but I'm feeling tempted to
open that bottle of Boxing day Champaign early.

Had the RRO passed unopposed, I suspect the finer details - to be sorted
out latter with Ms Hodge's department - of how adopted people were to be
allowed access to information that the rest of the population were
denied, would have involved them paying through the nose for an
'Adoption Support Agency' to obtain it on their behalf. Some of the
'adoption lobby' hopes to become an 'Adoption Support Agency' and might
I suppose if it had foreseen the inevitability of it becoming their
responsibility, have also seen it as a useful source of extra income. I
wish it were as easy to kick *some* of the new proposals for access to
adoption information in to touch. Someone with a newly acquired diploma
in music therapy, whatever that is , is supposedly more qualified to
help an adopted person find his birth family than is a genealogist with
many years experience of such work. Should the latter go as far as to
actually introduce separated (by adoption) members of a family to each
other, then he stands to receive a heavy fine or possible imprisonment,
if / when the current draft regulations become law (unless of course he
finds himself employment with his local ASA).

Robin Harritt

http://harritt.net

Robin Harritt

2004-12-21 09:49:35 UTC

Post by Robin Harritt

Post by Robin Harritt
That was I believe the report of the House of Lords Select Committee
on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform

It was , indeed <g>

Post by Robin Harritt
For those interested in the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee's
Report published today (20 December 2004) see
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdereg/118/11802.htm

And a jolly good read it is. Expands very much on that right royal
rollocking for putting sloppy work before the committee ......
I still have to take some time to read details but so far I think it
is good that they seem to have taken seriously the very vague
treatment of funding for proper preservation of all the old material
.....
How is it from the viewpoint of the adoption lobby, which I know is
your main interest, Robin?
Liz (Greenwich UK)

Not sure about the rest of the adoption lobby but I'm feeling tempted
to open that bottle of Boxing day Champaign early.
Had the RRO passed unopposed, I suspect the finer details - to be
sorted out latter with Ms Hodge's department - of how adopted people
were to be allowed access to information that the rest of the
population were denied, would have involved them paying through the
nose for an 'Adoption Support Agency' to obtain it on their behalf.
Some of the 'adoption lobby' hopes to become an 'Adoption Support
Agency' and might I suppose if it had foreseen the inevitability of
it becoming their responsibility, have also seen it as a useful source
of extra income. I wish it were as easy to kick *some* of the new
proposals for access to adoption information in to touch. Someone
with a newly acquired diploma in music therapy, whatever that is , is
supposedly more qualified to help an adopted person find his birth
family than is a genealogist with many years experience of such work.
Should the latter go as far as to actually introduce separated (by
adoption) members of a family to each other, then he stands to receive
a heavy fine or possible imprisonment, if / when the current draft
regulations become law (unless of course he finds himself employment
with his local ASA)

And I should have added. takes a diploma or degree in social work,
counselling or music therapy or some such.

Robin Harritt

http://harritt.net

Roy Stockdill

2004-12-16 09:23:10 UTC

Post by Liz
The report is now available at

Post by Liz
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/lddelreg.htm#reports

I've only had time for a skim-read but some of it is V.interesting.
Although the principal problem the committe have is procedural I am very
impressed that they seem to have taken on board so many of the
objections ... and that they do seem to feel that railroading was
taking place ....
At one point the proposers seem to say that this is not really a matter
for the general public to be concerned about and are answered with 'How
do the public know whether they are concerned if it is not to be debated
and discussed in the press etc?' And an implication that the public may
be rather pissed off when they have the details <g>
Knuckles were rapped for poor presentation, lack of proof-reading,
improper cross-referencing and general laziness in the proposals.
Typical of the arrogant way it was first presented to the genealogy
community, in my opinion. But they couldn't get away with it with this
lot <vbg>>

Thank you for that summary. I, too, intend to read the report fully
when I get a moment (not today, the FRC beckons!).

However, your initial thoughts mirror my own feelings (which I have
expressed in my opinion column in the forthcoming January Journal of
One-Name Studies). I believe they cocked-up in quite a big way, did
not give sufficient thought to the whole thing and - perhaps most
important of all - did not realise how fiercely some of the proposals
would be opposed by the genealogical community. I have been told off
the record they were amazed at the number of responses to the White
Paper, one of the largest ever and several thousand of them from
family historians. I find it surprising they made such a pig's ear of
it, because I have to admit that the chap in charge of it all, Kieron
Mahony, seemed quite efficient and pleasant and sympathetic to some
of our views.

Perhaps genealogists have some influence after all. Or could it have
more to do with a General Election pending next May?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

Liz

2004-12-16 09:48:48 UTC

Post by Roy Stockdill
I find it surprising they made such a pig's ear of
it, because I have to admit that the chap in charge of it all, Kieron
Mahony, seemed quite efficient and pleasant and sympathetic to some
of our views.

Ah. Funny how two people can get such a different impression of the same
event!

I felt that Mr Mahoney's attitude (in response to a couple of my
comments), was supercilious and patronising in the extreme <g> I
remember one question, can't remember if it was one of mine or someone
else's, which was a 'Why blah blah?' question to which he replied
'Because the Minister is so minded.' Full stop. Sir Humphrey has spoken.
pah! There was, at that meeting in the FRC, a decided element of talking
down ...I felt.

Post by Roy Stockdill
Perhaps genealogists have some influence after all. Or could it have
more to do with a General Election pending next May?

I think the report shows the Committee taking both genealogists and
records agents seriously. But there was also an understanding that the
proposals have a great deal to do with civil liberties which have been
sneaked in in the proposals. An awareness of the public's great
disenchantment with government IT projects. And the committee was not
happy with the idea that the public have a merely 'sentimental'
attachment to paper certificates.

I'm inclined to think it may be all thrown into disarray, as it will now
need parliamentary time, new preparation as a Bill. Some heads may roll
for the bad preparation and Ruth Kelly who was deeply involved has just
been made Education Secretary and is unlikely to want to be associated
with a cock-up ..... It is not necessarily all good news (tho' I can't
help a bit of schadenfreude) as some aspects of the proposals were
actually very acceptable .....

Ain't politics the new chocolate? <vbg>

Liz (Greenwich UK)

cecilia

2004-12-16 16:33:27 UTC

[...] I felt that Mr Mahoney's attitude (in response to a couple of my
comments), was supercilious and patronising in the extreme <g> I
remember one question, can't remember if it was one of mine or someone
else's, which was a 'Why blah blah?' question to which he replied
'Because the Minister is so minded.' Full stop. Sir Humphrey has spoken.
pah! [...]

Interesting - my interpretation of just such an incident at the FRC was
that KM disagreed with the minister but couldn't possibly say so (nor
dissuade the minister).

I was greatly reminded of my (civil service) father, who, when passing
on orders from my mother with which he privately disagreed, would say
"your mother says ...". When he agreed with her, he would say "Mummy
says ......". As far as we could tell, he was unaware of the
information he was passing on about his own views, and since he would
support her decisions regarding what we did, even if he would not have
made them, it was of little practical use to us.

Peter Goodey

2004-12-16 19:49:48 UTC

Post by cecilia
Interesting - my interpretation of just such an incident at the FRC was
that KM disagreed with the minister but couldn't possibly say so (nor
dissuade the minister).

Precisely my interpretation.

Roy Stockdill

2004-12-16 11:04:12 UTC

Ah. Funny how two people can get such a different impression of the same
event!
I felt that Mr Mahoney's attitude (in response to a couple of my
comments), was supercilious and patronising in the extreme <g> I
remember one question, can't remember if it was one of mine or someone
else's, which was a 'Why blah blah?' question to which he replied
'Because the Minister is so minded.' Full stop. Sir Humphrey has spoken.
pah! There was, at that meeting in the FRC, a decided element of talking
down ...I felt.>

I encountered him twice more after you, once at the Guild Conference
and again at an FFHS Conference, where he gave the same presentation.
This was some weeks or months after the initial FRC meeting and I
suspect by then he had realised he wasn't going to have it all his
own way. He knew me by then because I addressed the same questions to
him that I had done at the FRC and his attitude was quite
conciliatory. I asked him what on earth was so sensitive about
knowing that someone was a plumber when they married 50 years ago (at
this stage they were still talking about suppressing occupations) and
he replied "Nothing whatsoever!"

Me: "So why are you doing it, then?"
Him: "Well, that is one of the things we may look at again."

And they did - by dropping it! However, it would be unrealistic of me
to claim any credit for getting the occupations restriction chucked
out, but I think it was one ot the things they realised was
nonsense. In private conversation, one or two of us got the
impression that he personally wasn't in favour of everything that was
in the White Paper but he was in the hands of his political masters,
as you rightly suggest.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

Robin Harritt

2004-12-16 13:28:23 UTC

Ah. Funny how two people can get such a different impression of the same
event!
I felt that Mr Mahoney's attitude (in response to a couple of my
comments), was supercilious and patronising in the extreme <g> I
remember one question, can't remember if it was one of mine or someone
else's, which was a 'Why blah blah?' question to which he replied
'Because the Minister is so minded.' Full stop. Sir Humphrey has spoken.
pah! There was, at that meeting in the FRC, a decided element of talking
down ...I felt.>

I encountered him twice more after you, once at the Guild Conference
and again at an FFHS Conference, where he gave the same presentation.
This was some weeks or months after the initial FRC meeting and I
suspect by then he had realised he wasn't going to have it all his
own way. He knew me by then because I addressed the same questions to
him that I had done at the FRC and his attitude was quite
conciliatory. I asked him what on earth was so sensitive about
knowing that someone was a plumber when they married 50 years ago (at
this stage they were still talking about suppressing occupations) and
he replied "Nothing whatsoever!"
Me: "So why are you doing it, then?"
Him: "Well, that is one of the things we may look at again."
And they did - by dropping it! However, it would be unrealistic of me
to claim any credit for getting the occupations restriction chucked
out, but I think it was one ot the things they realised was
nonsense. In private conversation, one or two of us got the
impression that he personally wasn't in favour of everything that was
in the White Paper but he was in the hands of his political masters,
as you rightly suggest.
Roy Stockdill

Umm...the impression I got from some of the comments made by Mr Mahoney
about what he had seen on the Internet is that he reads or at least
read this newsgroup at the time. I was only at the meetings arranged
for post-adoption workers. In a private conversation with him at a
parliamentary reception for the Adoption and Children Act, he seemed
very bothered to be asked about the reasons for removing cause of death
from recent death certificates, and unable to state how many people had
asked for that. He barked at me "you don't expect me to name them do
you" leaving me with the impression that there must have been very few.
Ms Kelly MP was equally reticent in a letter on that subject to my MP in
response to some of my questions, which I feel might have been penned
for her by Mr Mahoney. I did come away from the whole thing with a
feeling that Mr Mahoney was at times finding it a bit embarrassing
having to support some of his ministers' less well thought out
proposals. I assume that in the fullness of time much of what was in the
RRO will turn up again in a Civil Registration Bill, let's hope they
give a little more thought to some of the sillier proposals and throw
them out before that happens.

Robin Harritt

http://harritt.net

John E Wynn

2004-12-16 18:40:59 UTC

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:28:23 +0000, Robin Harritt

Post by Robin Harritt
In a private conversation with him at a
parliamentary reception for the Adoption and Children Act, he seemed
very bothered to be asked about the reasons for removing cause of death
from recent death certificates, and unable to state how many people had
asked for that. He barked at me "you don't expect me to name them do
you" leaving me with the impression that there must have been very few.

A fairly young (55) public figure died suddenly in 2001 and to my
knowledge the cause of death has never been made public. I'm too
mean to buy a copy of the certificate :-)

John Wynn

Robin Harritt

2004-12-17 05:04:29 UTC

Post by John E Wynn
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:28:23 +0000, Robin Harritt

A fairly young (55) public figure died suddenly in 2001 and to my
knowledge the cause of death has never been made public. I'm too
mean to buy a copy of the certificate :-)
John Wynn

I'm not £7 worth of curious myself. Ms Kelly seemed to think that with the
cost of finding out being much less, we would all become morbidly
interested
in our neighbours' causes of death and then take violent exception to them
and start harassing the serving relatives. I would think its far more
likely that the press would bother the deceased's widow if they were unable
to find out the cause of death from a death certificate.

I wonder whether having in the past been found with twice the legal
limit of
alcohol the next morning, isn't perhaps a clue to what a chap's cause of
death is going to be, mere speculation you understand.

Robin

Roy Stockdill

2004-12-17 01:13:26 UTC

Post by Robin Harritt
Umm...the impression I got from some of the comments made by Mr Mahoney
about what he had seen on the Internet is that he reads or at least
read this newsgroup at the time. I was only at the meetings arranged
for post-adoption workers. In a private conversation with him at a
parliamentary reception for the Adoption and Children Act, he seemed
very bothered to be asked about the reasons for removing cause of death
from recent death certificates, and unable to state how many people had
asked for that. He barked at me "you don't expect me to name them do
you" leaving me with the impression that there must have been very few.
Ms Kelly MP was equally reticent in a letter on that subject to my MP in
response to some of my questions, which I feel might have been penned
for her by Mr Mahoney. I did come away from the whole thing with a
feeling that Mr Mahoney was at times finding it a bit embarrassing
having to support some of his ministers' less well thought out
proposals.<

It has always been my view that the proposal to suppress the cause of
death on death certificates for 25 years had very little to do with
genealogists and was, in effect, a back-door anti-press measure to
prevent the media from reporting that some famous person had died
of AIDS or alcoholism or whatever. Yet another blow to democracy and
freedom of speech.

Ruth Kelley, BTW, who presided over the civil registration review
fiasco, has been patted on the head and promoted to Education
Secretary. What was it they said about those whom the gods wish to
destroy they first make mad?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

(doff my cap to reply)

2004-12-23 00:47:37 UTC

Post by Liz
The report is now available at

Post by Liz
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/lddelreg.htm#reports

....