|Previous Section||Home Page|
Mr. Leighton : I hope that I was one of those 20. I have been in that noble band over the years and I intend to keep with its noble cause, because I belong to the Parliament party and I am sure that in this country we will prevail.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) : This country is making an important contribution to the development of the European Community in keeping alive the argument for liberalisation of markets and for deregulation. This country is keeping alive the argument that prosperity grows most swiftly and progress is made most rapidly when the case for less government is urged successfully on those who would over-govern or over-regulate. We can see that in a number of positive proposals that have been put through on British initiatives or have been strongly argued for by British representatives--for example, the deregulation of some aspects of civil aviation, which has brought cheaper air fares and more choice of routes ; the liberalisation of capital movements, which has created a more genuine financial market across Europe ; and the proposals to deregulate telecommunications and aspects of public purchasing, which can give businesses a real chance to sell in the wider European market and develop the commercial links, the interchange and commerce on which the entire growth of the European ideal must rest.
I dissent from those who have argued that British industry is ill-equipped to meet that challenge or is in some way impeded by the policies being pursued. Obviously, the contrary is the case. British business wants a Government consistent in defending British interests, consistent in arguing for more access and consistent in arguing for less government and more freedom for business to prosper, and that is what business in this country has. We can see that that has succeeded by the way in which the Japanese, the Americans and others outside the Community wish to locate and invest here to ensure that they are in a good position. They come to the country where enterprise policies are most supported and where the British community gives them the kind of backing that they require to exploit the wider European market.
Column 564When I came to the debate, I was obviously conscious that there had been arguments in the press about possible splits. I found the debate interesting because there is indeed a massive split on offer in the House today--and it has been seen in the Opposition. A succession of Labour Members have made extremely powerful speeches in defence of British national democracy and against the European Community at exactly the same time as Labour Front Bench spokesmen have argued that Labour is now the good European party. They are the same Labour Front Bench spokesmen who will not tell us all their policies on Europe and have tried to keep them secret from their own party until the publication of a document, from which many of their colleagues feel excluded, in which policies are developed which are not good European policies by Commission standards. The Labour party does not accept that Brussels should fix British taxation, economic policy, social policy or many other policies. The Labour party appears to be moving closer to the Government's position in accepting that we are part of a wider European Community and that that wider Community is one that must be limited in its ambitions and concentrate above all on the prospects of 1992.
Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West) : I, too, came into British politics because of an enthusiasm for the European Community, but I share the apprehensions of many other speakers about the apparent lack of democratic accountability within the institutions of that Community. There is a need to remedy that position.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said that we should not criticise M. Delors, because he was a senior civil servant similar to one of our senior civil servants. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) said that Commissioners were servants of the Council. If only that were the case, but it clearly is not. The Single European Act, for example, says that the Council acts on a proposal from the Commission. I believe that that is the root of some of our problems : it is the Commission that sets the agenda for what we are discussing. It is not this Parliament and, regrettably--although it now has some increased powers--it is not yet the European Parliament. Most proposals are coming from people who are not accountable to any of us, which is the root of many of our problems.
I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the other Ministers who have been going to the meetings of the various Councils on the progress that they have made towards 1992. I believe that on the banking own funds directive, financial services, public procurement, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and indirect taxation they have done a good job. However, I do not believe that many of the Commission's other proposals are relevant to the completion of the internal market or the creation of prosperity in Europe. An example of that has been the social charter. The Commission has its priorities wrong, and it should be concentrating much more on other areas that are in urgent need of being rectified if we are to create a true common market and a true European Community.
It is important to consider Government subsidies. The French, for example, in comparison to us, give double the amount of subsidies to their industries, the Germans two
Column 565and a half times more, and the Italians eight times more. That urgent matter has not been addressed by the Commission and I believe that it has been extremely dilatory.
One needs only to read the Court of Auditors' report to realise that nothing like enough has been done to prevent fraud. At the moment the management is totally incompetent. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has already described how progress on general insurance is being frustrated. Enormous barriers to takeovers still exist within the European Community. Anyone can come to this country and take over one of our companies, but in Germany and Spain there are no formal takeover codes. The enormous problems still facing the Community must be solved.
The social charter proposals take away from national parliaments what should be their responsibility. To retain some form of national sovereignty does not contradict the idea of progressing to some form of federal Europe. In the United States of America there is a national Government, but individual states take decisions on those issues about which they feel passionately or about which they believe the local communities should have the right of decision. I believe that that should be the future model for Europe. We should not go along with the social charter claptrap that is now coming out of the Commission.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : Those of us who are regular connoisseurs of such debates, whether as volunteers or conscripts, will agree that this has been a vintage occasion. Although the Opposition greatly welcomed the debate--much more than the Government, I hazard the guess--we would much prefer properly organised prospective rather than retrospective debates. We could then consider forthcoming decisions in the Community and express our views and the House could begin to take a greater interest in proper scrutiny of that legislation.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was the only hon. Member to consider the previous six months in detail. Certainly they were eventful, particularly the infamous Bruges speech to which almost everyone has referred today. That speech was so internally inconsistent as to be totally
self-contradictory. One sentence proclaiming an alleged belief in the European ideal was followed by another beating the nationalist drum and challenging the basic tenets of the Community. Henceforward, however, we are to describe that speech as an example of twin-track policy--we have the Minister of State to thank for that description. If such double-speak was intended to confuse our enemies, it succeeded only in confusing our friends and partners in Europe. Perhaps the Prime Minister is confused. Confusion was certainly apparent in her astonishing impromptu speech--referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice)--at the Daily Mail and Evening Standard opening with Bubbles Rothermere et al. The Prime Minister said in reply to her predecessor :
"We stood when freedom was challenged, we stood and we fought for freedom and the liberation of Europe was mounted
Column 566from our shores, and would not have been liberated unless we had stood and unless America had joined us. That is the vision of Europe I have. That is what the battle is really about."
What a strange comparison. Apparently, she perceives the threat from Brussels as comparable with that from Adolf Hitler.
Such speeches are part of the "lively" dialogue that has been taking place within the Tory party. It is not just nuances of difference or even two to six different interpretations--it is now open warfare. Lord Plumb, a leading Conservative, described his Prime Minister's actions as "petty national protectionism". He said that her call for a Europe merely of sovereign states, co-operating with each other where they wished, misunderstood the nature of the Community. He put her right as firmly as any man can by pointing out that
"there are no serious advocates in the Community of a European super- state".
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) rightly reminded us of that today. I venture to suggest, with perhaps a little humility-- [Interruption.]
I venture to suggest that we might make a better judgment on the issues if we recognised that the European Community is neither a capitalist plot, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) might think, nor the Socialist super-state envisaged by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). The Community is what we, as members, make it. Whether we agree to share our sovereignty is our decision.
In the debate that has been raging within the Conservative party we know that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has been less restrained in his criticisms than Lord Plumb. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) quoted the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) extensively and that right hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently for himself. From all the discussions and actions of the past few weeks it is not clear, however, whether the general confusion, and, in particular, the confusion about the Single European Act, is caused through ignorance or deliberate duplicity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said, article 100A of the Single European Act was rushed through the House, with a three-line Whip and a guillotine, against a united Opposition. We considered the legislation in Committee on the Floor of the House on a Friday and the Government panicked and moved the closure because they were so worried by the effectiveness of the opposition.
It was clear to us, as it ought to have been clear to Conservative Members, that the Single European Act introduced qualified majority voting on health --that includes warnings about the danger of smoking--safety, environmental pollution and consumer protection. The only exclusions were fiscal provisions, those relating to the free movement of persons, and the rights and interests of employed persons. Either Conservative Members knew what they were doing but now regret it and pretend that the reality is different from what it is, or they did not know what they were doing, which would have been a disgraceful dereliction of duty.
The Prime Minister is now stamping her foot petulantly and getting her Cabinet Ministers to mimic her in Europe,
Column 567not just in relation to smoking but, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said, on identity cards for pensioners--an idea that came from the voluntary movement in this country-- the health and safety package and the social charter. Labour is enthusiastically committed to the proposals for a social Europe where workplaces are safe and workers are well trained, fully consulted and properly rewarded throughout their working lives. Labour is also enthusiastically committed to a Europe where the role and contribution of women is properly recognised. Our programme, announced this morning, for upgrading employment rights, for radically changing the nature of training, for putting industrial relations law on a fair footing and for cleaning up the working environment will reinforce and be reinforced by the agenda for a social Europe which is now being developed but which is vehemently opposed by the Prime Minister and Conservative Members.
At Prime Minister's Question Time earlier today, the Prime Minister described the social charter as more of a Socialist charter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) reminded us, however, Lord Plumb said at Chatham House--and others have repeated it today--that
"It is in fact part and parcel of ensuring fair competition." On Tuesday last, Lord Cockfield said to the Select Committee on European Legislation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) chairs so excellently, that
"Social policy is part of the policy of the Community, as enshrined in the Single European Act."
If we are all to compete fairly in the Community, there must be harmonisation of the social as well as the economic and free market aspects of the Community. Equally, environmental standards need to be raised to the highest and equal levels, not just to keep our water pure and our beaches clean, but to ensure fair competition between enterprises in different countries. Capitalists do not voluntarily spend money on environmental protection if it cuts their profits. The Opposition know that all too well. On this, as on other issues, the Government are guilty not just of double- talk--the twin-track policy that we keep hearing about--but of double standards. We all marvelled when the Prime Minister suddenly discovered environmental issues and donned the green mantle, although, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, she donned it only to reveal that it is deeply soiled.
Once again, the Government's action fails to match the truth. If I may be forgiven for citing a local example, all seven Ayrshire beaches, including two in my constituency, fail to meet the requirements of the European Community directive on quality of bathing water, thus jeopardising health and undermining the huge and growing tourist potential. The Clyde river purification board urged the Government to take action and Strathclyde regional council wants to upgrade its sewage treatment works, but the Government refused to make capital available for that purpose. Again, they are all talk and no action. We now know that that is called a twin-track policy. The Prime Minister talks tough but fails to produce any effective action.
As we know, the Single European Act means that, increasingly, important decisions will be taken at a European level. That governmental activity must be brought under proper democratic control. The Opposition
Column 568see the path of future progress as being towards closer co-operation rather than an attempt to create a united states of Europe. As Ernest Bevin said, we are not going to open that Pandora's box and let all the Trojan horses out.
The solution is not to create a centralised tier of government in Brussels to supplant national government, but to make sure that the extensive and growing European co-operation that we seek is responsible to the British Parliament and the British people. Ministers must be made accountable to Parliament for the agreements that they make at the Council of Ministers. That is why we want an effective system of parliamentary scrutiny of European Community legislation. Again, the reality does not match the talk. The Government adopt a twin-track policy, as we must now call it. Statements in the House of what is being done in our name by Ministers in Brussels have withered to almost nothing. The Opposition have suggested a European Grand Committee to improve scrutiny, but no action has yet been taken. The Prime Minister and other Ministers prefer to keep decision- making away from the House and within the Civil Service, ministerial and Council of Ministers nexus where they can get on with it without any real scrutiny.
Our amendment highlights the inadequacy and ill-preparedness of the country to face the challenge of 1992. I am glad that a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry--the so-called Department of enterprise which adopts another twin-track policy of all talk and very little action-- is to reply to the debate. The British economy is saddled with a massive trade deficit and a higher inflation rate than in any comparable country. It is an under-invested, badly-trained, ill-equipped economy which is in no shape to compete in the 1990s. The right hon. Member for Henley correctly pointed out in his book that 90 per cent. of major British companies undertake no market research on the continent, and that 93 per cent. take no initiative to train employees in another European language. What are the Government doing? They are planning to send the Secretary of State for Education and Science to Brussels to veto the Lingua programme which might have improved that situation. In addition, 95 per cent. of British firms have no sales agents working in the rest of the Community. Those are just three key examples of our lack of preparation.
I hope that I have persuaded some Conservative Members who occasionally support us. The sad reality is that the Conservative Government have left Britain ill-prepared for our European future. Ten years of Conservative Government have left us too weak economically to meet the challenges and too socially backward to take the opportunities. The danger is that failing to meet the challenges and turning our back on the opportunities will condemn us to a mean and dispiriting future, as a depressed economic region on the edge of a greater European economy. We reject that option. That is why we ask the House to support our amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude) : I have great pleasure in agreeing with the honMember for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that we have had a most remarkable debate. He is a veteran of the
Column 569six-monthly debate ; I am a veteran of the debates we somtimes have later at night. He was right to say that this has been a vintage occasion.
There has not been that much said about the White Paper which is the subject of the take-note motion. I do not go as far as my hon. Friends who, in their amendment, describe it as a "depressing document". Perhaps there is not enough life and sparkle in the document to keep a five-hour debate going.
We had a series of notable speeches, especially from my right hon. and hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), with a majestic historical sweep, opened up horizons which are of value to us all. My right hon. Friends the Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), to take just three hon. Members who made remarkable speeches, applied themselves seriously to the issue that has been of concern to the Conservative party for a long time.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made an extremely powerful speech. He showed that the one theme running through all the speeches and which informs us all is that these are matters of the profoundest importance for the House. It has been a long debate and I have only 15 minutes in which to reply to it. Some of my hon. Friends have asked me to deal with specific points, but in the short time available to me I cannot possibly do justice to all the issues that have been raised. I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I do not go into points in great depth.
There has been much comment about the future. Perhaps the most remarkable phenomenon in the debate was that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in opening for the Opposition sought to present his party as the most European. So European is it that while he spoke there were only six Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber and almost all of them disagreed with him. I can see why the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, who wound up for the Opposition, was at pains to invite my right hon. and hon. friends to support the Opposition amendment. The reason for that is plain to see. The Opposition could rustle up only 20 Members to vote against Third Reading of the Single European Act, but it does not look as if they will be able to manage even as many as that tonight.
The serious contributions came predominantly from my right hon. and hon. Friends and I should like to deal with the central anxiety that some of them expressed, that we are not fully engaged in the European Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said that we were nervous about the European Community. We are not a bit nervous and the facts utterly confound that anxiety. Every measure of compliance with directives, of the implementation of court judgments, of complaints to the Commission or courts against us shows us to have the best record in Europe.
Of course, we occasionally raise objections to a proposal at an early stage in a way that may look negative, but that is actually because as good Europeans we take European proposals seriously. That means that we sometimes point out difficulties and problems which others have not spotted. That enables us to take a lead in Europe.
Column 570Let us look at one example, the issue of approximation of indirect taxes. We said at an early stage that, quite apart from our objection to the imposition of VAT on food, the Commission's proposals were cumbersome and bureaucratic. We were derided for being negative, but we put forward alternative proposals which were better in every way. We argued and persuaded for a solution which harnesses market forces and which avoids the centralisation and regulation of the Commission's proposals. By dint of our hard work and leadership, we have won over many other member states to the fundamentals of our position, and the Commission itself now recognises that its original proposals simply would not work. Yesterday it announced new ideas which go a good way towards meeting our basic concerns, for example, on zero rates. That is a major vindication of our firm stance. Of course there is much hard discussion ahead, but the argument is going our way. That is but one example of the ways in which Britain leads in Europe. I fully accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley says, that we should be at the leading edge. I believe that we are.
Let us look back 10 years to the issues which then bedevilled the Community and which some people argued threatened its very existence : a common agricultural policy totally out of control ; a budget with huge imbalances ; a single market which was no more than a dream ; a Europe held together by cash and red tape. Ten years on, the CAP is beginning to be seriously reformed. At long last, surpluses are reducing. That has not happened by accident. It has happened because of hard arguing, firm leadership and a refusal to accept that it was impossible. Britain is in the lead.
We must not forget the huge and growing budget contribution which the previous Labour Government had so skilfully negotiated. In 1984 when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was negotiating to reduce the budget contribution, the Leader of the Opposition was characteristically supportive of British interests. He said that the Prime Minister had better enjoy the sunshine at Fontainebleau because he did not think that she was going to enjoy much else. He said that my right hon. Friend would not come away with £475 million adding, "That I do know."
For once the Leader of the Opposition was right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not come away with £475 million ; she came away with £600 million and she has saved Britain £4.5 billion in total since then. Had my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not argued and argued and persuaded and persuaded, that net contribution would today be some £4 billion, which would represent nearly 3p on income tax. That was Labour's legacy.
Throughout the campaign to reduce contributions to the EEC, what was the Liberals' battle cry? It was "Surrender, surrender." Who takes the lead in attacking fraud in the Community? Once again, Britain has led and has pushed that issue high on the agenda. The single market is no longer a dream. It is a growing reality. Who was pressing for that?
Column 571(Mr. Heath) led us in that historic move into the Community that the achievement of a real, free, single common market was one of our principal goals. However, because of disagreements within the Community, because of other problems and because so many other countries have consistently defended their nationalistic and protectionist corners, progress was frustrated.
Time and again during the negotiations that I conduct for the United Kingdom, it is Britain which leads, it is Britain which drives programmes forward and argues for the European, liberal and genuinely free market solution. Only last June we supported a Council resolution stating that market forces should be strengthened, that the cost of compliance with Community legislation should be minimised and unnecessary regulation avoided and that existing legislation should be reviewed with a view to simplification. I stress that that was a proposal by the Commission which was supported by all 12 member states.
We are not isolated in Europe. We are winning converts all the time. We have rarely voted against single market measures. The only time that I did so was because the measure was not European enough. It would have allowed national protectionism to continue. In contrast, Germany has voted time and again, and been voted down, against measures which it found too liberal to stomach.
Let us consider some examples. Last year the Commission introduced a directive to open up the market in telecommunications terminals. We supported that directive because it would break down barriers to trade. However, the French, Italians and others are challenging it in the European Court. Last month we argued and won our case for a directive to liberalise transfrontier broadcasting. Who opposed it? It was opposed by Germany, Belgium and Denmark. On most of the issues we are in the majority. We are driving the programme forward. We are in the lead.
When we oppose proposals, as we do perfectly properly, it is rare for us to be alone. For example, we argued against the proposal for a right of residence directive partly because it dealt with issues outside Community competence. Many other member states had equal difficulty with it and the Commission has now withdrawn it. The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and, increasingly, Germany are as fundamentally opposed as we are to the proposal on withholding tax. The suggestion that Britain is on the sidelines while the real arguments go on without us is incomprehensible to those of us who take part in the discussions, day by day, week by week and month by month. So often we argue, in close alliance with the Commission, for a free market and a deregulated Europe against the narrow nationalism of some of our partners. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her speech at Bruges :
"Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community."
Nothing could be clearer than that.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken of the future of the Community and our future in it. Three years ago we signed the Single European Act. That was the first major change to the treaty of Rome for 30 years, and we agreed it. We signed it along with 11 other nations because it was necessary to achieve the original aims of the treaty. It was proving impossible to complete the single market against the single country veto. That is what the Single
Column 572European Act changed. It introduced majority voting for specific purposes. It was to enable the single market to be completed.
Mr. Maude : It specifically states that taxation, monetary issues and issues affecting the rights of employees can still be vetoed. We do not complain about majority voting. We have gained a great deal from it. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, transfers of sovereignty are not done in pursuit of an ideal ; they are done out of hard-headed self interest. That was done by all the 12 member states who signed the Single European Act.
Of course, there will occasionally be times when we lose, but as long as the issues on which we are voting are those which the Single European Act envisages, we will stand by those decisions. But we will argue, and so will many of our partners in Europe, against measures that extend Community competence beyond what we have agreed. Neither we nor our partners are being bad Europeans when we hold fast to the terms of the Single European Act. I make no apology for that. Now there are further proposals for further institutional changes. The Delors report is a useful document. It is rigorous in its analysis and it fudges no issues. The central and unavoidable conclusion that it reaches, as we knew it must, is that an economic and monetary union involves a transfer of sovereignty from member states to the new central monetary institution and central control of fiscal policy. That effectively means political union.
I do not say that that will never happen. What I do say is that it is not now, nor for the foreseeable future will it be, something on which the Community could agree. That firm view, shared by others in the Community, does not mean that we will stand back from the discussions on monetary co- operation.
The Delors report sets out three phases towards monetary union, but I have to say that the committee made it much more difficult to take part in those discussions by linking, in article 39 of the report, agreement to phase 1 to agreement to phases 2 and 3. Of course, we can talk about phase 1. Far from our being on the sidelines, we are already well ahead of our colleagues in the Community. None of this can happen without the final removal of exchange controls in Europe. We did that 10 years ago. The rest of the Community, after we and the Commission argued and persuaded for so long, agreed to follow suit by the middle of next year.
It was we who pioneered the issuing of ecu Treasury bills and who led the way in holding ecu and other European currencies in our reserves. It is we who have open financial markets. It is we who have led the way. We may have a two-speed Europe, but it is we who are ahead.
Let me talk now about another area in which it is said that great changes must be made. I do not contest for a moment that there is a social dimension to the single market. That is all about providing benefits to our people as consumers, travellers and employees. All the studies show that a substantial number of new jobs will arise. But the one thing that would guarantee that we squander those benefits would be to encumber Europe with the dead weight of heavy social regulation.
That is why the Labour party is at long last taking an interest in Europe. The one consistency in its stance at any moment is that it is prompted not be principle but by its
Column 573cynical and incompetent calculation of electoral advantage. Its attitude to the single market repays study-- opposition, opposition and opposition.
Dr. Seal, the leader of Labour Members of the European Parliament, said :
"The completion of the single market will make many of Labour's industrial and trade union policies illegal."
He is right. The Labour party has concluded that if it cannot have Socialism through the front door, it will have it through the back door. It is right to think that it will not get it through the front door. The British people will ensure that. But we shall make sure that the back door is locked.
Question put, That the amendment be made :--
The House divided : Ayes 51, Noes 176.
Division No. 208] [10.00 pm
Abbott, Ms Diane
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Golding, Mrs Llin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Marek, Dr John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Moonie, Dr Lewis
Pike, Peter L.
Quin, Ms Joyce
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Wareing, Robert N.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. Frank Haynes and
Mr. Allen McKay.
Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bevan, David Gilroy
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Body, Sir Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Cope, Rt Hon John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)