| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : In saying a few words about what is, in effect, a guillotine motion, I should observe that, if one is a Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland in this sort of debate one experiences the guillotine on a regular basis. I thought that it might be relevant in a debate on a guillotine motion if I were not to recognise the fact that littel time is left for me. I realise, however, that the Minister and the Opposition Spokesman have important points to make in reply and I shall not allow the guillotine to be enforced upon them as it so often is on Northern Ireland Members. My remarks must be even more compressed than they were in Committee, when we were accused of filibustering. There is an air of unreality, because in this debate about a guillotine motion we cannot debate the actual Bill. The debate, however, has now lasted almost twice as long as two important pieces of Northern Ireland legislation-- those which removed the freedom of the press and the right to silence. That, in effect, tells us something about this debate, although I am not sure what. What brought a sense of excitement to the Committee was wondering whether there would be a guillotine, a change of orders or just what would happen. What was remarkable was that it seemed that, when a decision was taken to put a timetable motion on the order of business, and it looked as though the Government might get through without enforcing it, there was some panic on the Government side. As one who
Column 728
is not involved in either of the major parties, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that both sides wanted a punch-up and that extra time was being sought on the Floor of the House, for whatever reason.One had only to listen to some of the speeches today to realise that the Government wanted this debate to make the silly, unfair and untrue point that the Opposition are soft on terrorism. I live in the midst of terrorism. I see it from all sides every day of the week. I do not believe that it is right that people who may have no experience of it should make wild and untrue accusations. A study of the record of the Committee shows that it was not dealing with a straightforward Bill, because the Bill could only be considered in relation to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which applies exclusively to the North of Ireland. They interlock at almost every stage, so that it was not dealing with one piece of primary legislation but with two, long, detailed and complex pieces of legislation. For that reason not only had we to spend more time on some of those issues, but we needed a change of Minister. What came through consistently was that there were times when the Home Office Minister felt that, possibly, the Northern Ireland Office Minister might be in a better position to give the information required, and vice versa. Because of the ministerial indecision and the substantial lack of information, especially about
statistics--which has still not been provided--it was almost impossible to make the type of crucial decisions that have to be made about this legislation.
During a radio interview this morning about the role of the Committee, the interviewer asked me, "Was it not the case that you were examining this legislation line by line?" I said, "Yes. I was under the impression that that is what a parliamentary Committee was for, which is why people like myself rise at 5 o'clock in the morning, catch a plane over here, sit through on that Committee until 3 o'clock the next morning and are prepared to do so on the subsequent day." It ill behoves people to make accusations that an irresponsible approach was brought to the Committee. It was anything but, because people do not spend such hours unnecessarily on the last day of Parliament before Christmas. We all know that most hon. Members would be going out to buy presents and, perhaps, stopping in some other place en route. The reality is that the Committee sat through that day to the early hours of the morning and successfully considered two substantial pieces of legislation in five weeks. I sat on the emergency provisions Bill Committee, which I believe lasted about three months.
If fault there is, that fault is with the Government, who did not foresee the problems which would arise. Between 1984 and January 1988, they had sufficient time to table that Bill so that it could be dealt with in a way that would meet their timetable without this sort of pressure.
I believe that the role of such a Committee is an important and valuable one. We all learn something more about the legislation ; new points arise and we gain a clear perspective of the difficulties foreseen, both by those opposing it and by those proposing it. There is something Stalinist about an approach which brings down a guillotine in such circumstances. When it became obvious that the Bill could be finished without a guillotine, near- panic broke out on the Government Benches and there was a great rush to be involved in the guillotine debate, for whatever reason.
Column 729
I have already described the logistical problems that exist for Members representing Northern Ireland. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members appreciate that much of the work that is done for a Committee on such a Bill is carried on outside that Committee. One must obtain the necessary professional advice and be briefed on the legal aspects of the Bill. If a Member representing Northern Ireland is unable to obtain such help because of insufficient time he is at a disadvantage similar to that felt by an hon. Member who must keep looking at the clock to ensure that he does not guillotine someone else's speech.The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) has said that terrorism must be defeated--in fairness to him, he consistently said that in Committee. The judicial abnormality created by the Bill establishes a situation that is crucial to present and future discussions. That abnormality is exactly the type of murky waters within which the terrorist likes to swim, within which he gets his cover and his recruits and spreads his propaganda. Such abnormality suits the terrorist.
If we consider the sorry scene before and after 1974, it is clear that the highest standards of judicial practice have been knocked down like skittles. The House has not done that--although it has been the witting or unwitting agent--but those standards have been knocked down by the very people against whom the law is aimed. The Provisional IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and all the other paramilitary groups have been able to seize the ball to knock down those skittles as they wanted. They realise more than anyone else that they can only exist in an abnormal situation. That is their milieu and where they thrive.
I do not believe that the Bill or any other legislation will do what the hon. Member for Bury, South wants. We have had almost 20 years of such emergency legislation. To date that legislation has not defeated terrorism ; nor will it do so in the future. If all of us, some of us or other people are standing here in 10 years' time and the same conditions and problems prevail, what then? What other steps can then be taken? What other steps are possible within the realms of ordinary jurisdiction?
With the Bill and other such legislation, the Government are going further and further down the wrong road. There must come a point when someone with strength in the Government will cry halt. They are on the wrong road because the Bill is incapable of defeating terrorism--there is no known piece of legislation that is. The only way that terrorism will be defeated will be when the people in the north of Ireland have sufficient confidence in legislation. When those people are not suffering at its hands and when they recognise that it is there to protect their rights and interests, is when terrorism will be defeated. Until then, however, the Bill and other such legislation sharply focuses the fact that such devices simply cannot deliver. In Committee, I pointed out many examples of the very activities covered by the Bill--those activities did not occur in the vague past, but happened that week--which were standing in the way of obtaining convictions in the North of Ireland.
I find it difficult to accept that anyone would believe that there was some sort of filibuster in Committee. I was present for most of the time and, if there was, I did not hear it. It ill behoves people who were not present to make
Column 730
such accusations, especially when one appreciates the hours that Members spent deliberating the Bill in a businesslike manner. Every time such a Bill comes before the House or a Committee, it must be put on the rack or under the spotlight to be taken apart, because, in part, it deals with the most basic rights of people.6.5 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : I am hesitant to say that this has been a good, constructive debate because of the appalling things that I have heard from Conservative Members tonight. Any impartial observer of our proceedings would agree that the debate has been unlike most of the discussions in Committee. Most of the time in Committee we had workmanlike and constructive debate. As in all lengthy Committees, there were light and heavy moments, but constructive cut and thrust was the general tenor of our debate. That was certainly not so today.
The guillotine motion has been made necessary by a Government who have blended incompetence with arrogance and spiced the dish with selfish malice. The Government are incompetent because they are bent on forcing a menu of grotesque proportions through a limited parliamentary timetable. It surprises no independent observer when that menu proves to be so vast that it is incapable of digestion by our parliamentary process and democratic system.
The Government are arrogant because they are deaf to international opinion and to the views of their critics. They managed their response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in such a way that they alienated their European and international counterparts and deeply embittered all but their most slavish adherents.
It is with a sense of sadness rather than spite that I note the malice that has been apparent in today's debate. At a certain time I believe that Government business managers thought that the Government could guillotine consideration of the Bill at an early stage even if insufficient time had been given for such consideration. No doubt they thought that, by moving a guillotine, they could trumpet to the world that the Opposition are soft on terrorism. Although the Home Secretary may not have made that allegation, any independent observer would testify that there are plenty of smaller fry who could be encouraged to say that in the most disgraceful way.
Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) rose--
Mr. Sheerman : No, I will not give way, because there is little time left.
The Opposition have a heavy responsibility regarding this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it is not a normal Bill, but one of great constitutional significance because it deals with the traditional rights and privileges of our citizens--their rights of liberty and equal treatment under the law. I remind the House that the Bill is far more complex and longer, in terms of the main clauses and schedules attached to it, than the Bill we considered in 1983. We have not had sufficient time for proper deliberation. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) rightly said that, as Her Majesty's Opposition, we have a duty and a responsibility to scrutinise the Bill in a manner sufficient for that purpose.
Column 731
I can say with confidence that at many times the Committee's scrutiny improved the Government's understanding of their own Bill. On many clauses and amendments, and certainly in regard to the new clauses, we educated the Ministers responsible--and two Ministers responded on different aspects of the Bill--in terms of their understanding of the clauses. I do not say that to make the hon. Gentlemen look foolish. That was the nature of the opposition that was the spirit in which our inquiries were received. The Bill is complex and needed such scrutiny.As has been said this afternoon, we needed only two or three hours in which to finish the Bill in Committee on Thursday evening. For some reason-- either the Government did not want to be embarrassed, or they wanted to say that the Opposition are soft on terrorism--the Chairman of the Committee said that no one in the Committee on both sides wanted to make any progress. That has never occurred on any Committee of which I have been a member. The Chairman directed those remarks particularly at Government Back Benchers.
We have had an honest and full scrutiny of the Bill. We had redoubled our efforts to ensure that some of the new provisions of the Bill--those dealing with finance flowing from terrorism, or with the remission that sentenced prisoners can receive--received particular attention, but no more than was required to do justice to the arguments that were being advanced.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) mentioned the Queen of Hearts. I believe that that is where the trouble lies with the guillotine. My right hon. and learned Friend was absolutely right that the Prime Minister must have said, "We have to show that we have a tough and macho image. We have to get through a lot of legislation in this parliamentary Session, and with this first Bill we have to show that we will be tough." Therefore, the guillotine was imposed, quite unnecessarily.
Mr. Sumberg rose--
Mr. Hind rose--
Mr. Sheerman : I will not give way. There is insufficient time and both hon. Gentlemen have had plenty of time.
Mr. Hind : I spoke for only 17 minutes in 52 hours in Committee.
Mr. Sheerman : If one reads newspapers and writes one's Christmas cards in Committee, one cannot whine in the debate on the guillotine.
We believe that the guillotine motion is an attempt to show the Government's macho image and to be a warning to all those other Committees that are scrutinising Bills at present. It is a disaster that we should be asked to scrutinise a Bill that started off as a permanent piece of legislation to replace a temporary piece of legislation.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told us that he was sorry that he had not responded to the European Court of Human Rights before Second Reading, but he had every intention of doing so early in the Committee proceedings. However, on the Thursday before Christmas, the Home Secretary came to the Committee for the first time and said that, reluctantly, he had to move to derogation in respect of the European Court of Human Rights. However, we had the impression that it would be
Column 732
temporary. After the Christmas recess, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department came to the Committee with a letter that he told us had been sent the day before, although, unfortunately, we had not received it until that morning. If one read between the lines, it was clear that the derogation would, in effect, be permanent and that it would not be effective before the Bill had received Royal Assent. It does not seem unreasonable for Her Majesty's Opposition to say that this is a fine old how-d'ye-do, when the Government start a Bill on Second Reading and we do not know what the Bill will look like halfway through, and when, halfway through the Committee stage, we are told that the Bill will be a temporary permanent piece of legislation. Any constructive Opposition would have to say, "We can no longer guarantee co- operation on this Bill." But the Government received a reasonable amount of co-operation that was far beyond what they deserved. Last Thursday evening, there were but two hours to go and the Government could have had their business. That was clear to the Government managers, to the Opposition Whips and to every Member of the Committee.It is an absolute scandal that the Government can push forward a guillotine motion today in the light of what happened in Committee on Thursday evening. I can only assume that that was because of the Prime Minister's view that the Government have to show a macho image, or, the other, quieter, voice that the Home Secretary is a little ashamed of--
Mr. Sumberg rose --
Mr. Sheerman : That would provide the possibility for Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) who is trying to intervene, to make scurrilous remarks that some Opposition Members are friends and sponsors of terrorists and terrorism. There was an apology for one such remark this afternoon, but at the end of his remarks the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) said that the Opposition were the tacit friends of the gun and the bullet. That is a slur on the Labour party and on Her Majesty's Opposition. It should have been retracted and I hope that it will be denounced by the Home Secretary when he replies to the debate.
Unfortunately, the guillotine motion has been a waste of the time of the House. It reveals much about the methods and the philosophy of the Government, who are determined to bludgeon all opposition and criticism into submission by any means at their disposal and to use any sledgehammer to hand. Today's debate shows that the Government will cut each and every debate because the one thing that they know about this place at the moment is that they will win the votes. But they will lose the arguments. That is why the guillotine favours those with large votes but with not much to say in favour of the case that they are making. We understand that, and we can predict it. But we do not understand a Government who will stop at nothing and cannot stoop low enough to slur and smear the Opposition, regardless of the importance of the issue and the depth of feeling about terrorism. Those who stand up to the Government are open to slur because we have an authoritarian Government.
The Opposition hate and despise terrorists and terrorism. We believe that there are far more effective ways of combating those evil men and women than throwing legislation at them. We hold the honest opinion that there
Column 733
are alternatives under the laws of our land that apply to all citizens. The terrorists love the oxygen of legislation far more than the oxygen of publicity. We believe that the guillotine motion will do nothing except fuel the cynicism of ordinary men and women in this country who are not swayed by masses of legislation and the lack of effective action against terrorism.6.18 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : As usual on these occasions, there have been widely differing accounts of what happened in Committee, but a certain number of facts have been established. If the Bill is to be effective, it needs to be on the statute book by 21 March. Agreement was reached in the usual way on the pace of discussion in Committee. Having reached that agreement on 10 January, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said on 12 January that the Opposition could no longer co-operate on the timetable, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave again today and at great length in a press statement, when he said that any question of co-operation with the Government had been rendered meaningless.
It is impossible for the hon. Gentleman to have it both ways. Either he is revelling in his indignation that we were so inadequate in our handling of the Brogan judgment, and is withholding his co-operation in order to show how indignant he is, or he has been co-operating all the time and wants the Bill to reach the statute book after proper discussion. His speech today was riddled with the same confusion as has been shown by the Opposition throughout. I understand that that confusion continued on Thursday night. It has been said several times today that, having said that they would withhold co-operation, on Thursday night the Opposition appeared to be willing to press on. However, in other ways we have received a clear signal that the Opposition were very keen that the Committee should shut up at 10 o'clock. There was the same confusion as has illustrated the Opposition's attitude to the Committee stage throughout.
I do not entirely blame the hon. Member for Huddersfield. We have a certain amount of information about this matter. It is clear to me that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)--[Hon. Members : "Where is he?"] That is the point. Like some 18th or 19th-century general, he prefers to command the battle from a distant hill. That is what happened to Lord Raglan at Balaclava. Like Lord Raglan at Balaclava, he gave the most ferocious orders, at a distance, to the troops. The right hon. Gentleman told his troops that they must tear up the agreement, charge down the valley, regardless of loss, and land themselves in this guillotine motion.
To do the hon. Member for Huddersfield credit, I am told that, unlike Lord Cardigan on that unhappy occasion, he protested against these obtuse tactics but was overruled. Far away--as again this evening--and out of range on his hill, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was adamant that--
Mr. Sumberg : Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Column 734
Mr. Hurd : No, I had better continue with my speech because I do not have very much time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) illustrated in his speech, the Opposition openly and publicly--and taking credit for it-- withdrew their co-operation on 12 January and in various statements thereafter on a Bill that is urgently needed. The Committee stage is not complete, and the remaining stages are ahead of us. There is not a great deal of time. Given the risks of delay and the hostile, though admittedly thoroughly confused, attitude of the Opposition, who are shifting a bit from day to day, it would have been foolish for the Government to take them on trust and not introduce the guillotine motion.
Why did the Opposition withdraw their co-operation? Why did it change from a relatively co-operative Committee into one in which the Opposition decided, day by day, how hostile and disruptive they were going to be? The answer that the hon. Member for Huddersfield gave was the Government's handling of the Brogan judgment. The serious contribution on that matter today came, as one has come to expect, from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I shall deal with what I understood him to say, although I am afraid that I returned to the Chamber in the middle of his speech. [Interruption.] I hope that no comparisons will be made between me and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. My score, as regards the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, was one-love at the beginning of the day and now it is two-love. In most sports, that is considered to be a margin.
Although he is dissatisfied with the outcome, I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will agree that both my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and I have been entirely open both with the House and with the Committee about the handling of the Brogan judgment. I explained both on Second Reading and in Committee just before Christmas how we might proceed : either by derogation under the convention or by introducing some form of judicial control. I said that we wished to find a judicial route, if we were able to do so. I went on to explain the difference between the continental system and ours over the concept of an examining officer. That difference was recognised by the court at Strasbourg. There is difficulty, therefore, over devising the judicial mechanism that the court's judgment suggested to us. I explained why, if we are to continue to use this power of detention up to seven days--which I believe is essential--it is right to derogate. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham thought it right after Christmas, and I entirely agreed with him, to bring the Committee up to date and to explain that, although we were still working on the possibilities of a piece of judicial machinery, it was not realistic to expect that there would be an early conclusion to our deliberations.
In response to what was said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I should like to add something to what we have already said. This is not a light matter. The hon. Gentleman did not treat it as a light matter. It would be foolish for anyone to do so. We are talking about three jurisdictions within the United Kingdom--Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. Their ways of handling these matters are all different. We are also talking about the need to consult various people within those jurisdictions who are not Government servants and who are not to be taken for granted. They need to be consulted
Column 735
on a number of matters, if we are to set up a judicial machinery. They must be consulted on who should do the job and what information they need to be given. We are not talking about the original detention--that would not be a matter for them--but about the proposal that detention should be extended and what the procedure should be. As I think the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) will agree, it is unrealistic to believe that one could discuss this matter hypothetically with such people in advance of the judgment. People outside Government whose views on these matters are important, would be unwilling to be drawn into hypothetical discussions. It would have been foolish to ask them, since the content of the judgment was different from what many people predicted.We are still involved in uphill work, and I cannot yet say whether the outcome will be successful. However, we are working genuinely to see whether a judicial piece of machinery can be found. My hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and other Conservative Members who have spoken in this debate were right to bring us back to the fact that this should not be a partisan matter. There will always be discussion about details, but there should be consensus on a matter such as this. The Opposition's attitude towards our reaction to terrorism is hopelessly confused and irresponsible.
During the last month, we have had terrible reminders of the power and the wickedness of terrorism. There has been the Lockerbie disaster, after which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) appeared constantly on our television screens urging the Government to do more and to be draconian. He urged the Government to tighten up on airline security by means of one measure after another. At the same time, however, the Opposition were opposing the powers of detention and exclusion that are contained in the Bill, which demonstrates a total lack of logic.
Mr. Dobson : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Furthermore, during the recess the police had to deal--thanks to the discovery of the Battersea bomb factory--with another terrorist threat that could have had equally tragic and disastrous consequences had it not been discovered. During the recess I used some of the powers of detention that are still available to me, thanks to the derogation that I announced.
I do not believe that any hon. Member, faced with the problems that were put to me, would have withheld permission to use those powers, or would feel that it would have been right, because of the Brogan judgment, to remove them and not to derogate. On reflection, the Opposition surely cannot believe that it is right--while they are pressing for tighter and tighter airport security and for more and more controls on passengers--to deprive the police or me of the powers that are necessary to save those who are at risk from terrorism.
Mr. Dobson : Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Hurd : No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Huddersfield did not give way, and I do not intend to do so.
Column 736
That will not do. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). As in the case of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, one would be foolish not to listen with considerable care to what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh says on these occasions.The Government do not say that the Opposition as a whole support terrorism or sympathise with terrorists, but the problem is that they have drifted far away from the time when they had to take decisions on these matters, or had to consider the right balance to be struck. They have drifted so far that they do not come to discussions of this kind in a sensible frame of mind.
It is one of the maxims of responsible politics that those who will the end must will the means. Opposition Members have forgotten that. Everybody in this House wills the end. That is to say that everybody in this House wishes to see effective measures against terrorism. The difference on the Government side of the House is that we also will the means. Of course, that creates occasional difficult problems and the need for special powers. I do not believe that the Opposition have thought the matter through.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh thought and spoke on behalf of his supporters in the Province. [Interruption.] Yes, he lives with the problem every day. That is why his views should be listened to with respect. He does not agree that special powers are needed. I accept one of the basic points that he made, that special powers by themselves are not enough. He knows that I have never argued that they are enough. I have never argued that strengthening the security forces in Northern Ireland is enough. I agree with his point that we will not get an answer in Northern Ireland without respect by the majority and the minority in the Province for the institutions of justice and of the state in Northern Ireland. He knows the steps that have been taken by my successor as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to bring that about.
To say that, of itself, the Bill will not solve the problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland is not an argument against it. One thing we have surely learnt through the passage of the years and through all the terrible events that we have lived through is that no single measure is enough. I am absolutely sure that the main proposals embodied in the Bill are necessary as part of an effective answer to terrorism. In particular, I am thinking of the renewed proposals on detention and the power of exclusion, which has been criticised--Lord Colville would have preferred us to omit it--but on rare occasions, case by case, I find it necessary for a successful effort.
We return to the heart of the matter and the heart of motion that my right hon. Friend--
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 46 (Allocation of time to Bills.)
The House Divided : Ayes 272, Noes 214.
Division No. 43] [6.32 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert
Aitken, Jonathan
Alexander, Richard
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Allason, Rupert
Amess, David
Amos, Alan
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Ashby, David
Column 737
Atkins, RobertBaker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Baldry, Tony
Batiste, Spencer
Bellingham, Henry
Bendall, Vivian
Benyon, W.
Bevan, David Gilroy
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Buck, Sir Antony
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butler, Chris
Butterfill, John
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Carttiss, Michael
Cash, William
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher
Churchill, Mr
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Colvin, Michael
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Patrick
Cran, James
Critchley, Julian
Currie, Mrs Edwina
Curry, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Devlin, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey
Dorrell, Stephen
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Dover, Den
Dunn, Bob
Durant, Tony
Dykes, Hugh
Eggar, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Evennett, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Fallon, Michael
Favell, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Fishburn, John Dudley
Fookes, Dame Janet
Forman, Nigel
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Forth, Eric
Fox, Sir Marcus
Franks, Cecil
Freeman, Roger
French, Douglas
Fry, Peter
Gale, Roger
Gardiner, George
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Gill, Christopher
Glyn, Dr Alan
Goodhart, Sir Philip
Goodlad, Alastair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Gorst, John
Gow, Ian
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Gregory, Conal
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Grist, Ian
Ground, Patrick
Grylls, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Hanley, Jeremy
Hannam, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Harris, David
Haselhurst, Alan
Hayes, Jerry
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Hayward, Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, David
Heddle, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Hind, Kenneth
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Holt, Richard
Hordern, Sir Peter
Howard, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Irvine, Michael
Jack, Michael
Janman, Tim
Jessel, Toby
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Key, Robert
Kilfedder, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Kirkhope, Timothy
Knapman, Roger
Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Knowles, Michael
Latham, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Lee, John (Pendle)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Lilley, Peter
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Lord, Michael
McCrindle, Robert
Macfarlane, Sir Neil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
McLoughlin, Patrick
| Next Section
| Home Page |