|Previous Section||Home Page|
Amendment made : No. 9, in page 3, line 14, at end insert and it shall be the duty of the Authority in determining the regions for which advisory committees are established and maintained to ensure that one of those regions consists wholly or mainly of or of most of Wales'.-- [Mr. Howard.]
(1A) No scheme made under Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect where it would operate to terminate, vary or otherwise affect the application of any management agreement or restrictive covenant which existed at the transfer date in relation to land or other property, except insofar as any such modification is necessary to give effect to the agreement or restrictive covenant.'.
This is one of a series of amendments that we shall move because we have not had the assurances that we believe we needed from the Minister in Committee. When we discuss amendments tomorrow relating to access to land, it will become clear that privatisation is about selling off assets, not about the green initiatives with which the Government have tried to pull the wool over our eyes.
The amendment is intended to ensure that existing management agreements and restrictive covenants governing the use of land carry over from the present water authorities to the new plcs. The amendment would ensure that such arrangements were included in any land transfer scheme. The Opposition wish that we had not had to table these amendments, but, as I have explained, we had to because we were given no assurances on this matter in Committee.
Organisations such as the Ramblers Association, the Peak Parks and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, about which we have heard a great deal this evening, are concerned about what is going to happen. Their concern has intensified, and has been set out in the excellent report, "Liquid Assets". My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will speak about these issues later.
The debates in Committee gave rise to questions about management agreements to do with recreation, access and wildlife ; such agreements are by definition discretionary. We do not want the agreements to be discretionary : we want them enshrined in the legislation so that we can be absolutely certain that management agreements between local authorities, voluntary organisations such as the RSPB and water authorities continue after privatisation. The Minister said in Committee that the concessionary use that we are concerned about would be determined at a local level, through the planning procedures about which we have heard so much from the Secretary of State. Why could the Minister offer us no guarantees about the continuation of these agreements? Why was it not possible for him to assure us that the management agreements that were so willingly entered into by the voluntary organisations and local authorities with water authorities would continue?
Column 1024The Minister also said in Committee that what we already have constitutes a sound basis for the continuation of policies. We have already heard from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that there is little scope for undertakers seriously to alter predecessors' policies. Why should he mention that unless he is concerned about it? We are given further cause for concern by the fact that the code of practice in clause 9 has no teeth, as we established in Committee. The code incorporates a prescription that policies for opening up land will continue. The Opposition are genuinely concerned that very important management agreements relating to all aspects of our countryside including hedging and wildlife, as well as the important issues of access that we shall consider in detail tomorrow, are in danger of being lost. If the Government were genuinely concerned about conservation and what happens to our countryside, especially the countryside closely connected to the water supply, rather than just two areas that the Minister has identified, it would be a simple matter for the Government to reach an agreement, so that an amendment could be moved tonight to ensure that any concessionary arrangements were included in land transfer schemes. We would then be in a much better position to judge the true intentions of the Government for the privatisation of the water industry.
Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : Thank you for calling me to speak on this important group of amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be almost tempting to agree with Her Majesty's Opposition in their amendments were it not for the fact that on Thursday 2 February at 9.30 pm a considerably better new clause was proposed by my hon. and good Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) which the Minister undertook to study carefully. My hon. Friend and I sponsored new clause 17 in Committee.
The Minister for Water and Planning took away the new clause and most kindly undertook to consider it favourably. His exact words were :
"I cannot undertake here and now that we shall ultimately adopt this or a similar proposal, but we shall consider
it in a positive spirit. I have considerable sympathy with it "--[ Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 February 1989 ; c. 798.]
Of course, the Minister will recall that in my constituency I have a large area of Dartmoor national park. I also have a particular area of outstanding natural beauty called Burrator reservoir. Other right hon. and hon. Members have national park land in their
constituencies. Within that national park land in the United Kingdom, 130,000 acres come under the national water authorities. It is that land that we are concerned about.
I wholeheartedly back the privatisation of water. It is most important that the water industry should be split up in the tripartite way that we have proposed. But I am concerned that, despite our reassurances, the general public are still worried that access to areas of great natural beauty will be constrained under the Act, and that their recreational facilities, which for many people are surprisingly limited, will be curtailed. Their recreation is surprisingly limited, although people living in big cities of course go out by car and perhaps by bus, and enjoy enormously the beauty that they find in the national parks, which of course include the Broads.
Column 1025I am worried, therefore, that this public concern will not be adequately met and not be properly taken on board unless the Minister is able to come back on these important points, especially in the context of our new clause 17 in Committee, rather than the group of amendments before us.
South West Water, for example, is led by an outstanding chairman in Mr. Keith Court, who will be a most able and brilliant chairman of the new public limited company. Gordon Bielby will head the National Rivers Authority.
Excellent agreements have been built up with national park authorities, water bailiffs and staff at all levels of the various organisations that also deal with national park land. I want that understanding to be codified. I do not want it to be only a grace-and-favour arrangement. It is important that the national parks and the Broads authorities are properly consulted on parts of their land that are of special beauty or that have special recreational facilities for the public. I badly need such provisions to be written into the Bill.
I call on the Minister when he replies to give me a reassurance that these public anxieties have been properly understood and that they will be matched by suitable regulations. I am confident that the Minister is listening extremely carefully and that he will respond in a wholly positive way. After all, the Secretary of State is a natural and proper conservationist who has a full commitment to the preservation of the countryside and to the recreational facilities that the public so rightly enjoy within the confines of the national park boundaries and of the Broads.
Mr. Wigley : I, too, have national park land in my constituency. Much of the land in Wales that is owned by the Welsh water authority falls within the category of "national park land" or "land of outstanding natural beauty", where public access is a matter of considerable concern.
I do not rise to put again the arguments that we had in Committee, but to follow on from our previous debate on new clause 1 when the Secretary of State possibly stunned his hon. Friends and certainly shocked the Opposition when he said that the main purpose of the legislation was the privatisation of 500,000 acres of land. Perhaps he was a little careless in his choice of words, but that is what he said. If that is so, we are concerned about the implications for land which is held by water authorities and will be privatised and for land which is either in national parks or of high amenity value to the general public.
Will the Minister tell me whether, in the circumstances that I am about to describe, the new water plcs will have the right to act in the manner that I am about to describe? Let us suppose that the plcs felt strongly that it was important that the land be preserved as a public amenity, albeit with safeguards for their own needs to draw water from that land, and that the plcs wanted to transfer that land from their own ownership and management to that of another public body such as the National Trust, or to set up trustees of their own just to look after the land rather than regarding it as part of a commercial package. Would they have the right to do that? We need assurances about that in view of the Secretary of State's statement when he replied to the previous debate. It is particularly pertinent
Column 1026to amendment No. 113, which relates to rights of access and the conditions that will be transferred when privatisation takes place.
Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : Amendment No. 113 causes me a good deal of uncertainty. I am principally concerned about the land around many of the reservoirs in my constituency in the Lake district which are crucial to the supply of water to many urban conurbations, especially around Manchester.
The history of this is that much of the land--I am thinking especially of Haweswater--was acquired under the Manchester Corporation Act 1919. I am also thinking of the 22,500 acres that were acquired from Lowther Estates, which owned land in my constituency. As I understand it, the 1919 Act gave a right of pre-emption enabling Lowther Estates to purchase all or any of the area acquired by Manchester corporation at that time, if it were ever sold. That was extremely important.
What is uncertain at the moment--this is extremely important in terms of access and all the other matters with which the amendment deals--is what the position of land of that sort will be after this legislation comes into operation. From the point of view of access, conservation, and so on, the record of previous owners is exemplary. For instance, at the instigation and with the encouragement of Lowther Estates, land within and just outside the area has recently been made an SSSI. Over the years Lowther Estates has worked extremely closely with the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, and I submit that its record is exemplary. 11.30 pm
I pay tribute to the Minister for his extreme kindness in making sure that I received this evening a reply to a letter about this matter that I sent to him in January. I regret that the reply does not make clear the legal position in respect of the rights of pre-emption that were granted over this land when it was originally sold to Manchester corporation in 1919. This is an extremely important matter, which ought to be put right. I can assure the Minister that if he cannot explain the situation--I fully appreciate that he may have difficulty doing so today--a good many questions will be asked in another place.
The basic concern of Lowther Estates is to ensure that the rights of pre- emption that were enshrined in the original sale in 1919 are maintained. My understanding is that if such an assurance can be given there need be no uncertainty about the future of the property. As I have said, Lowther Estates has an exemplary record in respect of conservation of the environment and other such matters. This is a serious problem. Before making up my mind about the amendment, I must have answers to the questions that I have posed.
Mr. Allen McKay : I am sure that, even at this time of the night, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have recognised the importance of this amendment. Parts of the constituencies of most hon. Members who have taken part in this debate consist either of national parks or of land adjacent to national parks. I am one such Member : part of my constituency is adjacent to the High Peak district, which is enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people from all over England between this time of the year and when winter sets in--and, indeed, after winter has set in.
When the Minister talks about a code of practice, he is being very optimistic. A code of practice is effective only if
Column 1027people are prepared to obey it ; it is absolutely useless when someone decides that it is no good to him. We have difficulty keeping statutory ways open by a code of practice, never mind voluntary ones. Time after time hon. Members receive complaints about statutory rights of way being ploughed over, built upon or built around and people have to get access by different ways from the statutory rights of way that have been there not for decades but for generations. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and I had the privilege of going to Ladybower in the High Peak district, which hundreds of thousands of people will visit this year for various reasons. When we consider Ladybower, we realise the fears of the people about the effect of the Bill on rights of ways. Preparations are already being made to put a turnstile there and thousands of people will be denied access unless they pay. From that single point people go horse riding, rambling and cycling ; sometimes they go by car. Access is by voluntary agreement with the rangers, the local authority and the water authority. By courtesy of Yorkshire Water the rangers have a place on water authority land. All that is in danger. We have to protect rights that have been negotiated and that have been in existence for generations. Rambling associations, fishermen's associations, motoring associations and horse-riding associations are all concerned about the issue because, like us, they realise that decades of planning and negotiation will go out of the window. It is already happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and I would on normal occasions have been able to go through the dam wall to see one of the marvellous pieces of architecture in the dam. Because we were Members of Parliament, we were denied access, lest we might refer to it in the debate. Already Yorkshire Water is putting up fences where there have never been fences. That is what is happening now. What will happen if the Bill mistakenly goes through, particularly without the amendments?
Mr. Boswell : I question whether the amendment is technically well conceived. I am no lawyer but it seems that the whole complex of agreements is such that some will be legally binding on successors and others may be extinguished on a transfer on sale. The Minister may want to comment on which are which.
Whether or not that is the case, I think it would be agreed on both sides of the House that there is concern that the arrangements that have been available on water authority land should, where possible, continue into the successor privatised undertaking. There will be a variety. Some will be basically related to conservation ; others will be related to recreation and access, which is by no means always the same, or an easily compatible user. Some will reflect management agreements which are designed to embrace the whole range of interests and reach a compromise between them. I stress that my hon. Friends and I are at least equally interested in maintaining that structure for the benefit of the public.
Where we might differ from the Opposition is in relation to our interpretation of the code of practice set out under the Bill. I remind the House that the code, which seems to have been widely praised, although in certain cases there is still scepticism as to its effect, provides the reference book for the operation of the general duties
Column 1028which are set out on the face of the Bill and which we feel are most important and sufficient for the purpose with which we are concerned.
I respect the Minister's assurances in Committee and the way in which he responded to our debates there. For that reason I am hopeful of a satisfactory outcome to this exchange tonight. I mentioned in Committee the possibility of building into the code some kind of anti-frustration clause whereby it would be impossible to use the occasion of a sale to frustrate the code. Will the Minister consider those points and respond accordingly?
Mr. Morley : The amendment is a reasonable and considered amendment which we have discussed in Committee. I hope that some conservation Members, who have expressed their concern and their reservations about the Bill as it stands, will be tempted to support the amendment. As the Bill stands, it does not have the sort of safeguards that, for example, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) quite rightly wants to see for his own area in the Lake district.
The content of the code of conduct is extremely good. What is contained within the code is fine, but the problem is the very first page, which says :
"The Code is designed to assist relevant bodies in performing their duties. But it cannot set out in full detail what those duties entail. Relevant bodies must themselves consider what full regard for these duties involves in the circumstances of each particular case. Failure to apply any guideline in the Code will not of itself constitute a contravention of the environmental and recreational duties in the [Water Act 1989], nor will it give any rise to any criminal or civil liability."
In effect, the code is worthless in terms of making people enforce it.
The water companies can get around the code by simply setting up a subsidiary company that they would argue is not part of the operational function of the water plc. Then the code, even with its weaknesses, will not apply. Already the Yorkshire water authority has set up such subsidiary companies so that they will not come under the guidelines on conservation and access as laid down by the code. There is nothing new about covenants. I expect that many hon. Members have bought houses that have covenants attached to them--such as restrictions as to running a business--which are passed on from sale to sale. There is nothing technically impossible about involving the covenants, and how they are used and the situations in which they might be relevant are discretionary. Where they may be relevant is in guarding against damage to conservation areas and in guaranteeing access. That includes such matters as agricultural and forestry changes, which, incidentally, are not covered by planning. In previous debates we have heard that planning protection will safeguard some uses of disposed land. We already know that the planning safeguards are not adequate to protect such land--for example, of scenic beauty--from certain kinds of development. They certainly would not protect it from forestry, which does not come under planning, or from farming methods. If there is an area of land next to an embankment, where one is concerned about wild flowers, or maintaining the water level in water meadows for those flowers or for the breeding species of birds, the water level and how it is managed is crucial. There are at present many voluntary management agreements all around the country operated in particular by local naturalist trusts that are affiliated to the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. They, of
Column 1029course, have outstanding areas of national importance that include the Lake district and the national parks, but they also have regionally important sites, such as Meldon reservoir, Tamar lakes, the West Pennines, Draycott water and Rutland water.
Rutland water demonstrates the conflicts that are going on. Anglian Water has already threatened court proceedings against the Nature Conservancy Council over the extension of fishing rights and the way in which fishing rights are used. Anglian Water has been trying to maximise its revenue, having been short of revenue over the years--as a result of the cash limits imposed on it--by seeing what can be achieved commercially. That has led to conflict with the Nature Conservancy Council and the local naturalist trusts.
That state of affairs is inevitable if we move towards the greater commercialisation of land, and the Secretary of State has expressed delight at the way in which the Bill will result in the privatising of thousands of acres of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. About 34 per cent. of the land holdings of water boards are in national parks. The Secretary of State's view on that comes as no surprise because he put forward the idea of privatising nature reserves. I do not know what he thought would be done to exploit privatised nature reserves commercially. Perhaps he had in mind hire-a-hedgehog or rent-a-rabbit schemes.
I hope that hon. Members who have not expressed concern over these matters will not allow themselves to be fobbed off by Ministers saying that they will give these issues consideration. That is what I tell my children when they want me to put my legs on the coffee table and throw a blanket over them to make a tent. I tell them I will think about it : I fob them off. The Minister must not use those tactics to get out of his responsibilities.
People are concerned to safeguard access, management agreements and nature reserves, so we need this type of covenanting arrangement. Of the nature reserves which now exist on water board land, some are SSSIs with some protection, others are leased from the water companies and have some protection until the leases run out, most are on one or two-year leases which are renewable and many are simply management agreements. The latter work on the basis of an understanding between the local naturalist trusts or conservation bodies which manage an area and conserve it, run it, plant it, maintain water levels, clear out the weeds and generally act in ways that are beneficial to the area.
Covenants would safeguard those arrangements. By such means, if those areas of land were sold, even by a third party, the nature conservation groups could have first option on buying that land. We are not being unreasonable in asking the Secretary of State to include such covenants in the Bill. By giving nature conservation groups that right, the land would be protected for ever.
Many rights of access are permissive. In the Peak district, for example, where 15 per cent. of the land is owned by water authorities, there are more than 40 miles of permissive paths. They have no legal standing and the public are allowed to use them only by permission of the
Column 1030local water company. The Lake Vyrnwy catchment area, which is owned by Severn-Trent, has 50 miles of footpaths, only one third of which are public rights of way.
Time does not permit me to go into this matter in greater detail. I hope the Minister will accept that the case for covenants is overwhelming. That principle could be accepted by the Government without even denting the philosophy--which I totally reject--behind the Bill. Every Conservative Member can vote on this issue, aside from that philosophy, to ensure that areas of nature reserves are protected, that permissive paths are guaranteed and that some safeguards exist for the millions of people who use these areas for their leisure and to protect the environment for future generations.
Mr. Howard : I will begin by setting at ease immediately the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I do not propose to say that I shall take this amendment away and think about it or consider it, and perhaps I should explain why.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) justified her desire to debate this amendment this evening by reference to the absence of assurances during the Standing Committee. We did not debate this amendment in Committee and when I explain its terms it will be apparent to the House why.
The amendment before the House would require that no scheme for the division of water authority assets between the NRA and the appointed companies should have the effect of terminating or otherwise amending any management agreement or restrictive covenant relating to the land transferred. The fact is that schemes of transfer under schedule 2 of the Bill, to which the amendment is specifically directed, are exactly what the Bill says they are. They are simply schemes for the apportionment as between successor bodies of assets, rights and liabilities. Of itself a scheme does not and cannot vary those rights and liabilities. Rights transferred cannot be strengthened ; nor can they be weakened. Any legal obligation binding on the water authority now will bind the relevant successor body. No such scheme can possibly have the effects which the amendment seeks to prevent. To say, therefore, that the amendment is wholly unnecessary is to put the matter very politely indeed.
By way of reassurance, let me deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who asked for an explanation of the kind of arrangements that would be unaffected not only by the schemes to which this amendment would relate but by privatisation overall.
First, I hope I need hardly say that all the protections afforded by national park, areas of outstanding natural beauty or other designations will fully continue. Beyond that, any management agreements made between the water authorities and the national park authorities will continue unaffected by the transfer schemes. They will be inherited by any successor in title in the future. The same is, of course, true of SSSI designations and of arrangements under them, which can only be terminated by the Nature Conservancy Council in its specific legislation. In the same way, any contractual arrangements between water authorities and, for instance, county naturalists trusts or other conservation bodies will pass with the land affected to the relevant successor body.
I recognise, of course, that there are many arrangements, such as those for the management of local
Column 1031nature reserves on water authority land, which may be on a temporary or short-term basis. But the circumstances in which they can be terminated or reviewed will be no different under the successor bodies from what they are under the water authorities today. The NRA and the appointed companies will be under the same strong environmental duty of furthering conservation and providing for access and recreation as are the water authorities now. What is now done in pursuit of those duties will remain valid under the Bill. The concerns underlying this amendment are, therefore, wholly misplaced.
I take the opportunity to make clear beyond any doubt the Government's commitment to ensuring the continued protection and conservation of the land transferred to the successor bodies and public enjoyment of it. In environmental terms, much of the most important part of that estate is within the national parks. I know that in the past the water authorities and the national park authorities have worked closely together on projects for protection of landscape, conservation of wildlife and promotion of public amenity. The Government are committed to ensuring that such co- operation continues.
Accordingly, in Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) has reminded us, we welcomed the amendment put forward by her and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), in association with the council for the national parks, to impose special notification and consultation procedures in respect of significant changes in use or management of water industry land in the national parks. We shall in due course be introducing an amendment to the Bill to give full effect to that proposal.
Mr. Christopher Hawkins (High Peak) : A large part of the most used national park in Britain is in my constituency and 15 per cent. of the land is owned by water authorities, so it is crucial for my constituents to clear up what the Minister has just said. If I heard correctly, he said that legal agreements, contractual arrangements and so on would be fully protected. Since there is so much misunderstanding on this, can he make it absolutely clear that voluntary agreements, the permissive walks in the Peak district national park and so on will all be protected under the Bill? Then I shall rest easy.
Mr. Howard : I understand my hon. Friend's concern about these matters. He arranged for a delegation from the Ramblers Association to come to see me recently, and this was one of the points that we discussed. Tomorrow, the House will have before it two amendments which closely respond to the concerns expressed by the Ramblers Association and make it clear that the duties in the Bill will extend to the sort of arrangements to which my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) has just referred.
We are still considering the precise terms of the amendments to which I referred earlier in response to amendments put forward in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West and for Dorset, North. It is possible that, in some respects, we may go beyond that proposed by my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to make a full statement on that before long.
I understand the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)
Column 1032and hope that he will appreciate that the point to which he referred in his letter to me--I am sorry that I have been unable to give a full response before now--raises important and complex legal issues, which are under careful consideration. I understand the importance for him and his constituents of an early reply on those matters, and I shall do my utmost to achieve that.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked for a specific assurance about whether the plcs--the successor bodies to the water authorities-- would be able, if they wished, to transfer land, for example, in national parks, to other public bodies or local conservation bodies. I am happy to say unequivocally that they will be able to do that. They will be private sector bodies, free to dispose of their assets in that way should they wish to do so. The hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe both referred to the code of practice. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone was unimpressed by the code's provisions and suggested that they would not have any significant effect. I should remind him that it is a statutory code, which has full force under the Bill and full account of it can be taken by the Secretary of State when deciding whether enforcement action should be taken against the relevant companies. If the Secretary of State does not take action after, for example, the code has been repeatedly breached, any citizen can take action against the Secretary of State, whose responsibilities are subject to review by the courts.
At the beginning of my observations, I said that the terms of the amendment were unnecessary because the schedule 2 schemes were simply for the transfer of existing assets, rights and liabilities, and no management agreements or covenants protecting water industry land would be affected by them. More than that, the concerns and fears underlying the amendment are misplaced and wholly misconceived. We are committed to ensuring the continuing conservation of public amenity of the water industry estate under the successor bodies. The Bill provides fully for that, and this amendment would add nothing to the means by which it is achieved. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject it.
Ms. Walley : We have listened carefully but still share the concerns which have been expressed by hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber. There is genuine concern about voluntary agreements. We are concerned not specifically with contractual agreements, but with voluntary ones. At this stage in the Bill's consideration, it is remarkable that the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he will come back to hon. Members in due course. How long must we wait for confirmation from the Minister on this?
Mr. Howard rose --
Ms. Walley : No, I shall not give way because there is not time. We are concerned about conservation and about the tremendous work mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on voluntary agreements. We want to ensure that the preservation of flora and fauna can continue, and will not be jeopardised, despite what Conservative Members have to say.
Mr. Hawkins : That was not a vague undertaking from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister. Amendments are down for discussion tomorrow-- Nos 57, 61 and 62, I believe--which meet the requirements about voluntary and permissive agreements. My understanding is that my hon. and learned Friend gave a strong undertaking that they would be covered. I hope that that is true ; if it is--as I am sure it is, or he would not have said so-- I welcome it.
It being Twelve o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- proceeded, pursuant to the order [6 February] and the Resolution this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made :--
The House divided : Ayes 206, Noes 318.
Division No. 127] [12 midnight
Abbott, Ms Diane
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Beith, A. J.
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Buckley, George J.
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Cunningham, Dr John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Golding, Mrs Llin
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Harman, Ms Harriet
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Heffer, Eric S.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)