Previous Section Home Page

Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North) : When the history of this Bill is written, the contributions of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boetang) throughout the Committee stage will be remembered as a delightfully irrelevant footnote. He has kept up that tradition right to the end, and I am sure that the whole House thanks him for his further eloquent but totally irrelevant contribution to the passage of our great Bill.

As we near the conclusion of this stage of the Bill, it is right that we should be as honest as possible--as we always are. My right hon. and hon. Friends recognise that it is a tricky Bill and one of whose merits it is difficult to convince the public. However, the public will ultimately be convinced of its value because it epitomises many of the things that the Government have striven to achieve over the years. The Government have taken upon their shoulders the mantle of the radical, belying the term Conservative that is part of the title of the party. We have been radical in respect of this issue.

The Government have also tackled, and not for the first time, sceptical public opinion. In this country, public opinion is innately conservative. Much needs to be changed that can only be challenged by the radical. We have also challenged the cosy presumption that public and state is best-- and in some cases is all. That belief flies in the face of what people have often said, and flies in the face of that which people have often voted against. Nevertheless, it is something we have had to tackle.

In dealing with the objections of my own constituents, I have found that the more the Bill is explained to them,

Column 133

and the more that matters are made clear, the more support the Bill generates. Many people are unaware that 25 per cent. of the country is already served by private water suppliers. Many people to whom I have spoken have been unaware that there is public regulation contained in the Bill to ensure quality--the National Rivers Authority, the Director General of Water Services. Many have been unaware of the failure of past investment which we have covered innumerable times, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It is important that some of the failures of previous Governments have not been well touched on by hon. Opposition Members tonight.

In dealing with people's concerns, we have been able to point to some encouraging things. We have recalled their concern about other measures carried out by the Government, principally gas and British Telecom. When the measures have been put through, opposition has fallen away and there has been encouragement of wider share ownership and wider participation by employees in their own industries. All these are things that the Government have tackled in many other areas in exactly the same way as they seek to tackle them in the water industry. There are areas where public concern has been very strong at the time that the measure has gone through Parliament but has faded away afterwards as the benefits have become clear.

When it comes to future benefits, I ask the Minister to comment on a couple of things when he replies to the debate. The first is the benefits that may come from the sale of expertise abroad. When private companies develop expertise in dealing with water in this country that technology will be available for use abroad. Why do we always assume that the French will come here and run our industry? Why do we not assume that people in this country will be able to export their expertise?

Perhaps the Minister should also mention the consumers' charter. Again, this is something which is often unknown to our constituents until we talk to them about it as a future benefit which they do not at present receive but which they will get from the way in which water will be supplied to them in future.

If there is one matter, in particular, which is inadequately dealt with at present and which the Minister may be able to clear up for the future, it is disconnections. The Minister is aware of the reservations felt that I and many on both sides of the House feel about the fact that at present a court order is not necessary before the water supply is disconnected. That should become the norm. I ask the Minister very strongly to consider this and see what the Director General of Water Services may make of such a code of practice if he could put it his way for consideration. That would be a very useful thing to do.

My constituents are particularly reassured when they think about the policies of hon. Members of the Opposition. When they think about some of the measures that we have introduced, they remember that the Opposition have caved in to our views on the sale of council housing, on the rights of the individual in trade unions, on renationalisation of many industries. They are encouraged that once again our views will hold sway and that once again the Opposition will cave in. We believe that the measure will work. It must work. With these things in mind, opinion in the country will be convinced and the measure will be seen in future as a great success.

Column 134

9.27 pm

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : In my brief remarks I will not go over many of the views, well expressed in the course of the debate, about the mistaken assumption that taking a natural monopoly and putting it into the private sector will somehow improve quality standards and also protect consumers. I will just touch on the argument that those people who live alone will benefit from metering. It ignores the fact that, on the water boards' own figures in the trial areas where metering is taking place and where the standing charges have been applied, even a pensioner will pay significantly more under metering than at present. Those people who have more than one person in the house, who have young children or who care for an elderly relative, will pay a great deal more because of the greater amount of water that they will need. It is not very helpful for some hon. Members to suggest that water will be rationed because of its high costs and that that is a good thing in itself. Something which has not so far been dealt with but which came up in Committee is the concern of people who have bought houses on estates where the sewers, laid by private contractors, are sub-standard, and will not be adopted by the local water authorities or private plcs, if and when they come in, will not adopt the sewerage systems. Incidentally, according to the argument of some Government Members, everything in the private sector is rosy, everything will be more efficient and better delivered. If that were the case, constituents of mine in Winchester avenue, Bottesford would not be suffering from sub-standard sewerage systems. Nor would those of the many hon. Members from all parts of the country who have raised similar problems.

Under the Bill the same people who laid those sub-standard sewerage systems will presumably be able to tender successfully to lay more such systems. The Bill does not protect quality standards. It represents yet another missed opportunity. It could have improved water quality, and protected conservation access and sites of special scientific interest. The Secretary of State has conceded a very small point on national parks : there will, he says, be consultation on the part of the privatised water companies. Nevertheless, they can still ignore the wishes of local people and the parks authorities, and proceed with developments that do no fit in with the areas in question.

Some hon. Members have argued strongly for tight regulation of prices. Such regulations will pose the risk that companies will resort to maximising their assets by capitalising those assets--in this instance, land, often of scientific importance and natural beauty. The Bill poses a danger to conservation, public health and water quality. It also represents a missed opportunity of dealing with private sewers and giving water companies powers to step into estates such as Winchester avenue, make good the damage and bill the people responsible, rather than giving them rights to tender for contracts to do the same again to the public system. 9.30 pm

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury) : The Minister of State found himself in rather a bad temper earlier--not for the first time, I would say. I do not intend to follow his example. I was, indeed, intending to start on a note of congratulation : the Secretary of State was absent for some of our debate this evening, and this time it was for a very

Column 135

good reason. He was attending the christening of his grandson-- [Interruption.] --of his two grandchildren : I congratulate him doubly. I shall make the obvious comment : I trust that they were not christened with Perrier, which seems to be the Secretary of State's favourite.

This evening's debate has been interesting--despite being the culmination of many hours of discussion--not least because of the enlightening comment from the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that water will be better in private hands because those who can afford it will be able to obtain the water that they need during a drought. That shows the market going to extremes. A Third Reading debate is supposed to consider a Bill as it stands after Committee and Report stages. Considering the Government's attitude, however, it is not surprising that today's debate has been something of a repeat of the Second Reading debate in December. Throughout our proceedings, the Government have dug in their heels and refused to listen to reason or public opinion, or to take account of the practical considerations that formed the basis of our debates and amendments in Committee.

There are three basic reasons why we--and public opinion--oppose the Bill as it stands. The first is one of principle. When we talk about the water industry, we are talking about an industry that is vital to the individual health of each and every one of us. More than that, we are talking about the public health of the nation, and indeed the long-term health of future generations. That is one of the reasons why the public know the dangers of water privatisation better than the Government. They recognise that advances in water purity and the safe disposal of sewage have contributed more to improvements in health than many of the drugs and medicines that are given so much credit. Almost all of that has been done at public expense by public authorities--in the main by those bodies that the Government love to vilify, the local authorities.

The second reason why we opposed and still oppose the Bill is practical. Everyone knows, and we have always said, that investment is necessary to bring the industry up to scratch. We have had arguments about the level of investment under Labour and Conservative Governments, and I am happy to repeat them this evening. The facts are clear : the average level of investment under the last Labour Government was substantially higher than it has been under Conservative rule. Leaving that aside, and looking to the future, what is likely to produce more investment?

The Government argue that the private sector will provide more investment. Leaving aside the Chancellor of the Exchequer's comment that investment in the private sector will be more expensive--which must somewhat reduce the amount of investment that the industry will receive--will the private sector invest more to clean up our rivers, to tackle pollution, to clean up our beaches and to provide pure drinking water, free of aluminium and nitrates and, more expensive to achieve, free of lead?

What incentive will the private sector have to make that level of investment? What incentive will there be for the industry in private hands to invest an extra £1 billion to clean up the beaches an additional £3 billion to improve drinking water quality or an extra £9 billion to confirm

Column 136

with EEC directives? What extra return will investors receive from additional investment of that magnitude? Will the industry sell more water or dispose of more sewage? Of course it will not.

The return to the private investor will not be high enough unless the Government's flotation is done in such a way as to cheat the taxpayer and the consumer. Water authorities are supposed to be valuing their present assets and liabilities--not an easy task when, for example, the Yorkshire authority does not know the condition of 70 per cent. of its sewers and does not even know where 30 per cent of them are.

The sampling techniques which form that basis of the asset management plans which are being drawn up have been described to me by a statistician, consulted professionally about the issue, as nothing more than

"an attempt to obtain a statistical blessing on guesswork." Anyone who buys into the industry will be buying a pig in a poke, which, on the basis of market forces, does not look that attractive. Indeed, the stockbrokers Seymour Pierce Butterfield Ltd. said in their report on the industry and privatisation :

"It is accepted that in terms of core operations, such as water supply, sewage treatment and disposal, growth is distinctly limited."

That does not sound an attractive proposition for the private investor. That, however, is the position before Government intervention. I say that because the one thing this so-called free market Government cannot do is let a privatisation of this kind flop. That is why they are busy interfering with and intervening in market forces, stacking the cards in favour of potential investors. I am sure that we shall soon hear about proposals for debt write-off. The massive debts of the water industry will not be passed to the private sector. They will be met, as usual, by the taxpayer. We now have the Government's latest document for price-setting. That confirms what we discovered in Committee, which is that the initial round of price-fixing will be done by the Secretary of State and that the new regulator, the Director General of Water Services, will not be involved.

We heard today that the Secretary of State has appointed the first Director General of Water Services, the man who, according to the Government, will look after the interests of consumers. He is, the House will not be surprised to learn, a Treasury civil servant apparently with considerable experience of the rates of return of nationalised industries, but with no experience of looking after the interests of consumers.

That fits in with the Government's outlook generally, because when the first round of price-fixing takes place in the autumn, consumer representatives will not be consulted or have any input. Indeed, the document on price-fixing says :

"The primary duty will be to ensure that companies are able, in particular by securing reasonable returns on their capital, to finance the industry."

It goes on to say that subject to that duty will be a

"duty to ensure that the interests of customers are protected." In other words, the duty to ensure the interests of customers, of consumers, is given only as a secondary duty, secondary to the job of securing reasonable returns on capital. That means that prices will be higher, investment costs will be passed directly to the consumer and, because the K factor in prices will reflect a basket of

Column 137

charges, domestic consumers could end up subsidising industrial polluters. That is a long way from the principle that the polluter must pay.

The Government are interfering with market forces so that the industry will be more attractive to private investment. They are doing this in three ways. First, they are doing it with regard to debt write-off. We await the Minister's announcement, and if he does not intend to write off the debt, I hope that he will clarify the position by telling the House this evening that that is the case. The second way in which the Government intend to make this industry more attractive is by allowing higher prices once the industry is in the private sector, and by allowing cost pass through to the consumer. The third way in which they are making the industry attractive is by handing over to the private sector assets and powers that will inevitably be used against the public interest.

Looking again at the report of the stockbrokers and city analysts, one sees what they say of a private water industry :

"Low increases in earnings per share, limited potential for growth in dividends, and a semi-static market do not, at first sight, suggest an exciting investment. This is not a view, though, which is likely to be shared by a number of potential predators. Any company that could optimise the use of a water authority's client base by using it to expand the market for its existing products, perhaps in a related field, stands to benefit significantly. Companies in the chemical waste disposal and heavy construction sectors might find particular attractions in bidding for privatised water industries." There we have a summary of what this Bill is all about. The words of the City analysts are "potential predators". They are the people who have their eyes on this industry ; they are the people who will make most out of it once it goes into the private sector. We do not want to see, and the public do not want to see, a water industry that is owned by chemical companies and construction companies, yet these are the very companies identified by the City analysts as most likely to be interested in buying into this industry. If water companies are to be owned by chemical companies, and then those water companies are to contract out the analysis work of the NRA, the NRA will become a farce. The likes of Mr. Court of South West Water will be well on their way to achieving their objective of outwitting the regulators, and the chemical companies, or other polluting companies, will be well on their way to ensuring that the polluter does not pay.

Of course, there is also the land issue. Of the land, the city analysts say :

"Water authorities with significant amounts of surplus land may well realise sizeable capital gains by selling it."

Of course, the new water plcs will be given that land when the industry is sold, so that they may realise those gains. To asset-strip and take the gain of the land values wherever possible is certainly the objective of those companies.

Another development has become clear--and I hope that the Minister will confirm the reports that have appeared in the press. It has become clear that the Government have decided to give important planning powers to the new water companies. These private companies will be able to decide whether a building development will have adequate water supply and sewerage facilities. How very convenient for the construction companies that buy up water companies and get 500,000 acres of land, much of it in areas of outstanding natural beauty. The construction companies

Column 138

will decide land values and where development should take place. That is one of the reasons why the French are interested. If the price of the industry when flotation takes place is low enough and if enough bribes are given, the water industry will be sold. If that happens, the consequences will be with us for many years to come. Fortunately, the public realise what this is all about. The public, like the Opposition, want a water industry that is accountable not to the shareholder but to the consumer. That is why they want us to vote against the Bill.

9.45 pm

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard) : One of the last points made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was typical of the Opposition's approach to the Bill. There is no truth whatever in her suggestion that the water companies will be given powers over development. The position will not change. The water companies will have a duty to provide infrastructure for development and they will have a right to be consulted, just as they have at the moment. That was an absolutely typical example of the way in which the Opposition have sought to mislead, exaggerate, scaremonger and play upon people's fears.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howard : No, I have already dealt with the hon. Lady's point. The Bill has been discussed in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House for over 187 hours. The last few hours have been as interesting as ever. I shall deal at the outset with another example of scaremongering by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). He suggested that, contrary to earlier assurances, workers in the industry will not be provided with a pension scheme that includes index-linking. That is not so. They will be entitled to terms, through the mirror image scheme, that will be exactly similar to those in the local government superannuation scheme. It will be at the same cost to employees and it will include index-linking. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to his sponsor, NUPE, and ask it to put the matter right and tell the truth to its members who are employees in the industry so that they are not misled.

In his interesting speech my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) based his opposition to our proposals on what he saw as the lack of competition in the industry. With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that he exaggerated the competition that exists in the telecommunications and gas industries and underestimated the extent to which the Director General of Water Services will be able, by comparing the performance of different companies in the water industry, to ensure that the standards of the most efficient spread to the rest of the industry and that the customers of the industry benefit from the greater efficiency. I am confident that in due course he will see the merit of what we are suggesting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) again expressed his fears about disconnections. He expressed those fears many times in Committee. We are still considering his suggestion that disconnections should take place only after a court order. However, we have decided that the disconnections code should be subject to

Column 139

the approval of the director general. That was one of the points in which he was interested. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) raised a number of interesting points, which we shall look at carefully.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell- Hyslop)--whose speech I was sorry to miss--expressed concern about the strength of powers and the independence of the National Rivers Authority. We shall take care to ensure that the National Rivers Authority is an independent body and that is has the powers that are in the Bill for all to see, as well as the resources that it needs to do its job properly.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking that the National Rivers Authority has the duties for which he pressed. We think it right that it should have a discretion when it comes to decide to what extent it is appropriate to take samples, but its duties will be supervised by the Secretary of State, who can issue directions to the authority and whose exercise of that supervisory power is itself subject to supervision in the courts.

The National Rivers Authority is in many ways the cornerstone of our proposals, and it has presented Opposition Members with something of a quandary. It is so obviously a good idea, and so obviously a body that is badly needed that even Opposition Members have found it difficult to attack. Sometimes they have taken refuge in attacking not the proposals contained in the Bill but the proposals contained in the arrangements which were previously proposed for the industry and which were withdrawn by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Perhaps the true attitude towards the National Rivers Authority was let slip--as the true attitude of the Opposition so often is--by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) when he was winding up our debate on 22 March. The hon. Gentleman sneeringly and derisively referred to a description of the National Rivers Authority provided by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell, who will be its first chairman. Lord Crickhowell had referred to the need to operate "a slim, efficient, cost conscious organisation".

To the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that was a description worthy of derision. He would no doubt prefer a bloated, inefficient, extravagant organisation--an organisation of the kind which was so typical of the Opposition's years in government. Indeed, it was during those years that we saw the remarkable triple achievement of massive increases in water charges, massive increases in staff and a halving of capital investment in sewerage.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : On the specific point of the size and resources of the NRA, surely the Minister should support our earlier amendments which would have given the NRA sufficient resources and powers to do its job properly. If it is to be the slim organisation about which he spoke, that is why it has to contract out so much of its work back to the water plcs.

Mr. Howard : The hon. Lady has made that charge before ; there is no substance to it. In eight of the 10 regions there will be no contracting out to laboratories. There will be no contracting out of sampling in any of the 10 regions

Column 140

and we shall respect the safeguards that the National Rivers Authority advisory committee has put forward to safeguard its independence.

Of course, when pressed about the undoubted achievements and advantages of the Bill, Opposition Members say--this is the kernel and crux of the argument--that it is not necessary in order to achieve these advantages for the industry to be transferred to the private sector. All these advantages can be achieved, they say, while keeping it in the public sector.

This is a straightforward proposition. It is, moreover, a proposition which can be tested. It can be tested against the record of the Labour party when in Government ; it can be tested against the record of this Government. What the Opposition have never done is to make it clear which, if either, of these tests gives them any confidence that the argument which they advance is a sound one. That argument can hardly be said, even by Opposition Members, to survive the test of the industry's performance while their party was in government.

We know--the figures are incontrovertible--that capital investment in the industy fell by one third during the Opposition's period in Government. Investment in sewage and sewerage services fell by no less than one half. That fall continued during the period when the right hon. and noble Lord Callaghan of Cardiff was Prime Minister in an Administration in which the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) served successively as parliamentary private secretary to the Prime Minister and as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Industry.

One might have expected that those cuts would have been marked by great heart searching on the part of the Government who were responsible for them. It might have been expected that the most anxious consideration would be given to the effects of those cuts on our rivers, on our bathing waters and on our water environment generally. I turned for enlightenment to the autobiography of Lord Callaghan, so aptly entitled "Time and Chance". I turned to the index of the book. Do we find there page after page of reference to anguished discussions on the future of the water industry, and on the effects on the industry of those cuts? I fear not.

I looked under water ; there was not a single reference. I looked under sewage and sewerage services ; not a single reference. So far from being accompanied by a gnashing of teeth or a wringing of hands, or indeed any realisation of the damage that was being done to our water environment, those cuts were made without any mention, without any regret, without any realisation of the enormous damage that they would do.

I thought that perhaps the then Prime Minister was too busy on grander matters to have concerned himself with these minutiae, and I was anxious to be fair to the Labour party, so I turned to the memoirs of Lord Barnet, who was Chief Secretary at the time. I looked in the index of his book for a reference to water ; there was not a single one. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Howard : I looked under sewerage services ; there was not a single reference. But, to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party, there were some references which were relevant to this subject. There were three-- [Interruption.]

Column 141

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Boateng : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can it possibly be in order for this tour around the memoirs of previous distinguished members of the Labour party to be made at this stage of the Bill? Is it any more in order

Mr. Speaker : Order. What is being said is in order.

Mr. Howard : This is a test of the policy which the Labour party is putting forward. I found three references of some relevance to this matter in the memoirs of Lord Barnet under the heading "Water workers strike spy". On page 169 of the book, under the evocative chapter heading "Gloom and doom", we read :

"There was unofficial action of a most damaging kind in the water industry, with many homes without water and elderly people having to use stand pipes."

That was what was happening in the water industry under the Labour party almost exactly 10 years ago.

If the Labour party's attitude does not pass that test, let me suggest another test to the Opposition. They can hardly say that they wish their policies to be subjected to a test of what has happened while the present Government have been in office. We say that matters have improved under the present Government, but--

Mr. Spearing : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Is it a point of order? Very well.

Mr. Spearing : Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Third Reading debate is confined to the contents of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker : I think that the Minister is talking about the Bill.

Mr. Howard : What I am talking about is the policy which is at the heart of the Bill and the Labour party's opposition to that policy. Labour Members are advancing a policy which has consistently failed to give the people of this country the water environment to which they are entitled. It failed while the Labour party was in power and it has not done as well as it should have done while the present Government have been in power because the only way in which we can get the resources necessary to give this country the water environment it needs is by putting the industry in the private sector, and giving it access to private sector resources to enable it to operate with the efficiency which the private sector will provide. That is what the Bill provides. That is the only way in which we shall achieve the advantages that are so essential if we are to proceed with the clean-up of the water environment which all the people of our country wish to see.

The hon. Member for Copeland has repeatedly said that the Labour party will return the industry to the public sector. He does not seem to be in the confidence of his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who keeps leaking to the newspapers the fact that the Labour party will not return the industry to the public sector. No doubt that is why the hon. Member for Copeland said that he was willing to set out all the answers to the questions that have been put. However, that will not be in this debate, but in a speech that he will make in a few weeks. He has not told the House the Opposition policy during our debates on the Bill but says that he will wait for a few weeks before doing so. That is a measure of the contempt with which the hon.

Column 142

Gentleman treats the House. I invite the House to treat the Opposition tactics on the Bill with similar contempt and to give the Bill the Third Reading it so eminently deserves.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time : The House divided : Ayes 319, Noes 227.

Division No. 137] [10 pm


Adley, Robert

Aitken, Jonathan

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Ashby, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkins, Robert

Atkinson, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Batiste, Spencer

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Benyon, W.

Bevan, David Gilroy

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Buck, Sir Antony

Budgen, Nicholas

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butcher, John

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, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Colvin, Michael

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cormack, Patrick

Couchman, James

Cran, James

Critchley, Julian

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Curry, David

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Devlin, Tim

Dicks, Terry

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Dunn, Bob

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

Forman, Nigel

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

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

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Hague, William

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Hanley, Jeremy

Hannam, John

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Harris, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Hawkins, Christopher

Hayes, Jerry

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Hayward, Robert

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Hill, James

Hind, Kenneth

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Holt, Richard

Next Section

  Home Page