---

Column 806

of the balance of payments figures in January 1988. I remind the Minister and the Secretary of State of what she said :

"Last month's trade figures were a freak."

Then we were told, in a long explanatory note with last summer's figures, that the dock strike had distorted the trade figures. This month, in an even longer explanatory note, we were told of the erratic items that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East explained to the House earlier. In relation to this month's figures, we were told about diamonds. Diamonds always were a girl's best friend, but this month they have been a very convenient friend to the Prime Minister. However, they have been no friend to the millions of women whose families have faced more mortgage misery as the markets discount the long explanatory notes from the DTI, as the markets discount the freaks, as they discount the erratics, and as markets discount the diamonds. Those markets threaten to force another hike in interest rates to combat speculation against sterling. The Minister will know what I mean when I say that the Secretary of State does not have a reputation as the most perceptive member of the Cabinet. That was confirmed today in front of the whole House. I want to say something about the contribution of the Secretary of State. I listened very carefully to try to catch the salient points, but I was able to take only two points from the speech. The first is that, clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby pointed out, the Secretary of State was confused about the difference between capital payments and current payments in the balance of payments. Secondly--I want to give him a little credit--he was right to say that the trend matters. What he did not own up to was the trend of the past 10 years. If he were to face up to that trend, he would recognise that we have a trading problem and that his Government have turned a trade surplus of £2 billion into a deficit which, it is predicted, will be £18 billion later this year.

But I want to be fair : I want to give the Secretary of State credit where credit is due. He has acknowledged that the trade deficit is a problem. During the debate on the address in reply to the Gracious Speech, he said :

"I know that the trade deficit is unacceptably high. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken steps to reduce it. However, the causes of the deficit lie not in the supply side failure but in the unacceptably strong surge in consumer demand and record imports of capital equipment for industry."--[ Official Report, 22 November 1989 ; Vol. 162, c. 121.]

Hon. Members will wonder which of the steps taken by the Chancellor the Secretary of State was referring to. Was he referring to the Chancellor's anti-inflation strategy? Did he believe that the Chancellor had endorsed the increases in electricity prices, water prices and rail fares? Did he believe that the Chancellor would be happy with the poll tax increases that have been imposed on even Conservative local authorities? Was he not alarmed by the increase in mortgage costs that the Chancellor inflicted on millions of people as he tried desperately to take steam out of an economy whose overheating had been fuelled by his predecessor in the 1988 Budget? Does not the Secretary of State accept that all those policies pushed up inflation, thus having the opposite effect to what was intended? If the Secretary of State was somewhat ambiguous about the steps taken by his right hon. Friend, he cannot be accused of any ambiguity in regard to this second point. There is no doubt that the unacceptably strong surge in

---

Column 807

consumer demand has caused a problem, and the country will want to ask some questions. Did not the previous Chancellor recognise that the 1988 tax handouts to the rich would cause problems? If he did not, did not the current Chancellor--who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time, before going on his package holiday to the Foreign Office--recognise that a tragic spurt in the balance of payments deficit would be the inevitable result?

If neither of them understood the likely impact, why did not the then Secretary of State for the Environment--now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry--dash along Marsham street, round Parliament square and into Whitehall to warn the Treasury of their impending folly? Did he not perceive the economic damage that the 1988 Budget would cause, or was he too busy preparing the ground, drawing up proposals and probably consulting Conservative councillors--or perhaps not--about his highly successful plans for the poll tax, or his plans for water privatisation?

After his speech today, the House will probably not expect the Secretary of State to understand capital investment statistics, but I can tell him that it is not true that the importation of equipment for British industry took a significantly larger proportion of total imports. The shares in 1988 and 1989 were broadly similar to that of some 20 years ago. In 1986, the capital goods deficit was £0.8 billion out of £9.4 billion in total visible trade ; by 1989, the deficit was £1.6 billion out of a total of £24.5 billion. If capital goods were distorting the trade figures, the balance of payments would not be in its present mess. With a fall in manufacturing investment in the last quarter of 1989, January's figures would have displayed an improvement.

Mr. Ian Taylor : The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the disastrous impact of the 1988 Budget several times. In fact, through tax cuts, the budget released taxes amounting to some £4 billion, while total credit expansion in that year was £40 billion. The problem is related not to fiscal policy but to the expansion of domestic demand, and high interest rates are the only way of bearing down on that.

Mr. Henderson : The main question to which the hon. Gentleman should address himself is whether the 1988 tax cuts had a beneficial effect on the economy, or can be shown to have caused more damage subsequently. The Government should have devised a balanced Budget that took account of the needs of investment, as well as those of increased consumption.

Do the Government now recognise what the country has increasingly come to recognise--that our economy is hopelessly out of balance and that even with all the benefits of £87 billion-worth of North sea oil revenues, our manufacturing sector is weaker than at any time in our history? Do the Government recognise that manufacturing output growth in the United Kingdom came 18th out of 20 OECD countries between 1979 and 1988 and that in the past three months our manufacturing output grew by only 0.2 per cent? Do they accept that manufacturing investment was only 2.5 per cent. of GDP in 1988, which I remind the House the Government claimed was a record year, compared with 3.3 per cent. in 1978?

If the Government recognise that there is a link between those figures and the state of our manufacturing sector, do they also acknowledge that the failures of our

---

Column 808

manufacturing sector lie at the core of our trade deficit? Writing in the Sunday Times last Sunday, David Smith described our trade performance as a "grim record", noting :

"From 1979-1989, the volume of non-oil exports grew 43.9 per cent. while imports increased by 84.8 per cent."

If the Secretary of State needs further convincing, will he consider the view of the Confederation of British Industry about our supply-side failures? John Banham, the director general of the CBI, told the CBI conference last November :

"We cannot expect to deal our way out of our problems. Investment in all its aspects--plant, skills, innovation and the

infrastructure--remains the key".

He believes that such investment is necessary to tackle not only manufacturing efficiency and competitiveness, but the cause of the inflationary pressures in the economy. I agree.

Inflation is not a genie that has escaped from a bottle. Britain's inflationary gap with other countries is caused by a misguided macro- economic strategy. Today's inflation is caused by the Government's specific policy choices. They introduced the tax-cutting Budget for the rich that led to a glut of money chasing luxury imported goods. Those policy choices also rely on high interest rates and on an artificially shored-up exchange rate.

It is what economists used to call stagflation, but surely it is still stagflation. It is stagflation that will lead to cost pressures on our industrial competitiveness and have a further alarming impact on the trade deficit through its impact on export prices. That is not only my view. It was shared by David Smith in the Sunday Times last Sunday.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : Is Labour's policy to reduce exchange rates, creating more inflation, to reduce interest rates, to increase taxes or to have import controls? What is Labour's alternative to the present policy?

Mr. Henderson : The hon. Gentleman has shown that he is even more confused than some of his hon. Friends who spoke earlier. The House has been asking for Labour's answers, so I shall give some answers. Like any sensible Government--like sensible Governments in Europe--a Labour Government would ensure that a proper balance was achieved in the economy and that proper choices were made between investment and consumption. A Labour Government would ensure that we invested in the important things, such as education, training and research and development, which the right hon. Member for Henley identified as key points.

Mr. Hind : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman--

Mr. Austin Mitchell : So you should be.

Mr. Hind : The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) listened to my speech with care, and I apologise for missing the first part of his speech. We want to know how the Labour party would effect the policies to which he referred. It is no good talking only about trading and balances. What will a Labour Government's fiscal policy be? What will they borrow? For what rates of taxation will they aim? What will be the exchange rate? Those are the things that we need to know. How will Labour achieve their policies?

Mr. Henderson : I am surprised that the hon. Member does not believe that training is important. After hearing his views on his local industrial development agency, I

---

Column 809

should have thought that he would believe that in his local economy training is absolutely important. He should have listened more closely to the speeches of Opposition Members, which have highlighted the important points in seeking to restore our economy.

We are now seeing the results of economic mismanagement. It is an economy in chaos and hopelessly out of balance, structurally and regionally. Together, those imbalances have caused further damage to the economy, which has meant that the Government have completely failed to tackle the long- standing problems of stop-go which has created a congested southern part of the country and areas in the north that are working far below their capacity.

It is not only a question of what the Government have failed to do. Clearly, they have failed to invest in training, education, research and development for the 1990s and in roads, railways,

telecommunications and other important parts of our infrastructure. But it is also a question of what the Government have done. The Government know that they have taken £5 billion out of rate support grant to local authorities which could have been spent to regenerate our inner cities. They know that they have cut expenditure on export services. They know that they have hacked regional development aid. At a time when industry is crying out for support, they are breaking up and selling off the Department of Trade and Industry.

People are demanding a new agenda. The people of West Oxfordshire demand a new agenda and the people of Mid-Staffordshire will demand a new agenda. People want new ideas for a new decade. They demand an end to cynical consumer short-termism and an end to policies that give no thought to tomorrow. People are demanding an end to pay-offs for the rich. They want Britain to invest in its future. The British people want to be proud of British industry again. They want to be able to drive along our roads and travel on our trains without congestion. They want proper education and science for tomorrow's generation.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr Robert Atkins) : And more roads.

Mr. Henderson : Yes, they want more roads, and more railways. They are looking forward to a better age. People want an end to greed, consumerism and the moral austerity that goes with looking after number one. People want the beginning of co-operation, concern and a moral commitment that goes with looking after the generation of tomorrow.

9.33 pm

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : This has been in part an interesting debate, and also an important debate. It has been interesting because of the resolute refusal of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, particularly the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to spell out the detail of Labour policy.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong (Durham, North-West) rose

Mr. Hogg : I shall not give way for the moment.

---

Column 810

That was especially the case when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall identify one or two of the questions left unanswered by the hon. Gentleman.

It has been an important debate because it has been possible to put current economic concerns into their proper perspective. The Government accept that there are at least three economic issues that are of general concern and need to be addressed : the current inflation rate, high interest rates and the adverse trade gap. It is wholly unseemly and quite inappropriate for the Labour party to criticise the Government about the inflation rate. Of course the present rate is too high, but even at its current level, it is only about one half of the average annual increase achieved by the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. It is 19 percentage points below the record level of 26.9 per cent. that the Labour Government achieved in August 1975. Moreover, the policies that the Labour party and its trade union friends constantly urge upon us, most notably an immediate and substantial reduction in interest rates, a craven concession to any inflationary wage demand that may be made and a heedless hike in public spending, would widen the trade gap and lead to an early return to spiralling inflation.

I accept that interest rates are uncomfortably high, in that they put pressure on disposable income. However, I also accept that inflation puts yet more pressure on people's disposable income. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) so correctly said, the only effective way to reduce direct inflationary pressures is to bear down on consumer demand by and through interest rates, and that we shall continue to do for as long as may be necessary. Mr. Win Griffiths rose --

Mr. Hogg : I shall not give way at this point.

We shall not tolerate a return to the inflationary policies of the 1970s, fuelled and presided over by the Labour party, which confiscated savings, impoverished the elderly, destroyed both public and private investment and led us in shame to the IMF.

I am astonished that the Labour party is unable to recognise, or perhaps unwilling to concede, the improvements now taking place in the balance of trade. The transformation, especially in our exports, is quite extraordinary. In the three months to January 1990, there was a fall of £1.3 billion in the visible trade deficit. I turn specifically to exports, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), and here the figures are more encouraging. In the three months to January 1990--excluding erratics and oil--the volume of exports was up 4 per cent. over the previous three months, and by no less than 11 per cent. on a year previously.

The import figures also point in an encouraging direction. In the three months to January 1990, the volume of imports was 1 per cent. lower than in the previous three months and only 2 per cent. higher than in the year previously. It is worth peering more closely at those crude figures. In the last three months, exports of manufactured goods rose by 3.5 per cent. Imports of manufactured goods fell by 1 per cent. Exports of passenger motor cars rose by 11 per cent. Imports of passenger motor cars fell by 3.5 per cent. Those figures, simple and readily comprehensible as

---

Column 811

they are, point to the underlying strength and continuing competitiveness of British industry. That is the fundamental truth which has become apparent during the debate.

During the past 10 years, Britain has seen a fundamental transformation in her absolute and relative position. The facts are striking, so I shall give them. Manufacturing output in 1989 was 5 per cent. higher than in 1988 and 23 per cent. higher than five years ago. Manufacturing investment in 1989 was 5 per cent. higher than in 1988 and 34 per cent. higher than five years ago. In 1987 and 1988, economic growth was 4 per cent. higher in each year, on top of five successive years of previous growth. Manufacturing productivity has grown 25 per cent. in the past five years.

Mr. Win Griffiths : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg : I shall give way in a minute.

Unemployment has fallen by 1.5 million in the past three and a half years. In the past 10 years, the real take-home pay of a married man on male average earnings with two children has gone up by one third. Mr. Griffiths rose --

Mr. Hogg : That is a transformation of a radical and rare kind. I do not claim that the Government are entitled to exclusive credit for all that --that would not be right--but for the Labour party to disparage that record and to pretend that it is not so, or that if it is so that it is of no significance, is to commit a yet grosser failing ; grosser because it shows either that they do not know the facts or that, knowing the facts, they do not care to admit them, or that they admit the facts but they do not understand them. However one views it, Labour has been less than candid with the House and has had little or no significant material to contribute to the debate.

Now I come to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. He did not deserve it, but I gave him the courtesy of listening to his speech. He said that he would say something about Labour policy. He did : it took him 30 seconds in a speech that lasted 32 minutes. There was a brief reference to more training, more research and development, lower interest rates and the exchange rate mechanism. He made only broad generalisations.

I entirely agree with the criticisms by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) of the speech made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. He said that lower interest rates would stimulate demand, have a disastrous effect on inflation and widen the trade gap. I also agree with my right hon. Friend when he said of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East that the talk about training and education is hot air, because, had the Labour Government done it way back in the 1970s, we would not be in the mess that we are in now. We are doing something about that, and they did not.

There may have been no policy from the hon. Gentleman but, goodness me, there was a great deal of ignorance. For example, he complained about a shortfall in research and development. The hon. Gentleman has not been doing his homework.

Mr. Ridley : He never does.

Mr. Hogg : Had he done it, he would have found some interesting facts. Between 1983 and 1987, industry invested more than 27 per cent. in real terms in research and

---

Column 812

development. The number of scientists and engineers employed in industrial research and development rose by 13 per cent. between 1981 and 1987. The Department of Education and Science's science budget is now 25 per cent. higher in real terms that it was 10 years ago. Total United Kingdom spending on research and development has grown by 4 per cent. a year in real terms since 1983. Those facts are clearly unknown to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, and that is a pity.

Ms. Armstrong : Would the Minister like to tell us why R and D investment by the Government in the last year for which we have figures was 2 per cent. for the northern region and about 60 per cent. for the southern region?

Mr. Hogg : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman-- [Laughter.] -- that the hon. Lady has raised that, because I shall now discuss the difference, if any, between the north and the south.

Another curious mistake made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was to refer to what he described as a gap opening up between the north and the south. He is clearly unaware of the latest unemployment figures, and he is clearly unaware that, in Wales, the north-west, Scotland and the north, unemployment fell faster in the past year than in London, the south-east and Greater London. Indeed, in the north and in Wales, it fell by almost 25 per cent. While we were having a little candour from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, why did he not tell us about the unemployment figures in his constituency? He did not, but I will. In the past 12 months, they have fallen by nearly 19 per cent.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East talked a great deal of nonsense about failure on the part of the regions to attract a high level of inward investment. What nonsense. Has he not heard of Toyota going to Derby and of Fujitsu going to Durham, and does he not know that, in Wales between 1984 and 1988, more than 250 overseas investment projects were created, resulting in some 31,000 new jobs? The hon. Gentleman gave us stale jokes mixed with ignorance. In common with my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Esher (Mr. Taylor), and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), I have some questions that I would like to ask, because it is right that we should know what Labour party policy is.

Is it still Labour party policy to impose a payroll tax of half a per cent. on the pay bill? Is it still Labour party policy to hike national insurance subscriptions for employers? If the hon. Gentleman has forgotten where to find that, it is on page 33 of the policy review. Does the Labour party intend to oblige all employers to pay a minimum wage to some 4 million employees? If he does not know where to find that, it is on page 30 and 31 of the policy review. Does the Labour party intend to have a national investment bank? Does it intend to have a network of regional banks? Does it intend to encourage pension trustees by changing the law to take account of the interests of regional economy? What are the answers to those questions? [ Hon. Members :-- "Answer."] Well, the House will draw its own conclusions. Either the Labour party has changed its policy in the past six months, or it is trying to conceal it. Either way it is disreputable.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley made an extremely powerful speech, in the course of which he called for distancing the Bank of England from Government

---

Column 813

policy. I am sure that he will agree when I say that that issue is essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley will forgive my asking this question, at least rhetorically, of him : if the German central bank is indeed such a model of independence, how much independence did it have when the German Government decided to amalgamate the ostmark and the deutschmark? I suspect, not that much. There is, however, one matter on which I think that my right hon. Friend and I can agree : that all responsible bankers, whether or not they are independent, accept that interest rates are the only effective way to bear down on inflationary pressures. From that perspective, it is policy, not institutions, that matter. My old sparring partner, the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), referred to training. He made a stirring call for more training, as did the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). We all agree about the merits of training. That is why we are putting policies in place. However, their speeches would have been a great deal better had they referred to the facts--for example, to the fact that industry is spending £18 billion on training, that the Government are setting up training and enterprise councils with budgets of £2.5 million, that we have introduced the core curriculum, that we have placed increased emphasis on science and engineering in higher education. We can all quarrel about policy adjustments, but to talk about training without mentioning these elements is, frankly, to admit ignorance on a grand scale.

Mr. Hoyle : The hon. Gentleman has made great play of education and training, but does he not agree that Siemens in West Germany has trained more graduate electrical engineers than are are trained in the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hogg : That particular fact is not in my head. However, the hon. Gentleman is in no position to talk about facts. During the five minutes of his speech that he spent on training, he failed to mention any one of the four facts that are central to the issue that I have just mentioned. He failed to mention the very encouraging downward trend in unemployment in his constituency, although he whinged about that. Unemployment in his constituency has fallen by about 18 per cent.

The hon. Member for Warrington, North also taxed me about Sunderland and referred to the end of shipbuilding there. However, shipbuilding is a cyclical industry. During the decade that led up to the decision in December 1988 to end shipbuilding in Sunderland, there was a dramatic downturn in the Sunderland work force. That downturn was associated with subsidies and loss. The Government have put in place a closure package that involves remedial measures to the value of £45 million. We are creating a diversified and more prosperous economy in Sunderland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) referred to the considerable improvement in industrial relations. He is wholly right. The facts deserve to be repeated. In 1989, working days lost were a third of the average during the period 1970 to 1979. The number of stoppages, at 672, was the lowest for about 50 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West made an extremely powerful case in favour of Japanese manufacturers coming to the United Kingdom. In this, he

---

Column 814

was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, with whom I entirely agree that cars produced in the United Kingdom, albeit by Japanese-owned companies, are European cars and ought to be treated as such. We should welcome that fact, because it is having a dramatic impact upon our indigenous capacity. At the moment, we have a United Kingdom car production capacity of about 1.3 million vehicles. By the mid-1990s, this will rise to about 2 million. That gives us an opportunity of unique proportions, not least for component manufacturers. I am sure the House will be pleased to know that, in 1989, car exports to Japan rose by no less than 75 per cent. in value.

When hon. Members talk about foreign penetration of our car market, it perhaps behoves them to remember that it was between 1974 and 1979 that import penetration doubled to 56.3 per cent., and it has remained stable since that time.

The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) made two cardinal mistakes. He doubted the value of inward investment. I do not suppose that that feeling is shared by the employees of Nissan, Honda and Toyota or by the employees of Rheinhagen in or near his own constituency. Secondly, he did not mention the fall of 12 per cent. in unemployment in his constituency during the last 12 months. Moreover, he misunderstands the changes being undertaken by my right hon. Friend within the Department of Trade and Industry. The purpose of those changes is to make the delivery of services yet more effective.

So we come to the end of this debate, and I hope that hon. Members will read and reflect upon the terms of the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have to say to the House that, for ignorance or lack of candour, or a combination of both, it takes some beating.

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the present rate of inflation. True, it is too high, but it is a quarter of the level achieved by Labour in August 1975, and it is destined to fall. He refers to the trade deficit, but he ignores the fact that we have just had the best export figures for 17 years. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of business bankruptcies. Does he not understand that business is a dynamic process, with firms opening and firms closing? What matters is the net figure. In 1988, over 60,000 more firms opened than closed, which is a fourfold increase over 10 years previously.

The right hon. Gentleman refers to redundancies. He appears not to know that since 1983 employment has risen by 2.9 million and that our unemployment rate is now two thirds of the Community average. He speaks of investment cuts. Has he not been told that, in the three years to 1989, business investment increased by over 40 per cent., the largest increase in any three-year period since the war? He refers to cuts in regional investment, but appears not to know that, over the last few years, the regions have seen a dramatic upturn in their prosperity and employment levels and have received a dramatic proportion of that inward investment from Japan and America, which rightly regard Britain as the most attractive of the European countries in which to establish their manufacturing businesses. The Opposition should be ashamed of the motion. It exudes ignorance, it is couched in half-truths, it reeks of humbug and we should reject it with contempt.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question :--

---

Column 815

The House divided : Ayes 227, Noes 285.

Division No. 105] [9.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Anderson, Donald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Armstrong, Hilary

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Ashton, Joe

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Barron, Kevin

Battle, John

Beckett, Margaret

Beggs, Roy

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Bermingham, Gerald

Bidwell, Sydney

Blair, Tony

Blunkett, David

Boyes, Roland

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Buchan, Norman

Buckley, George J.

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Canavan, Dennis

Cartwright, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clay, Bob

Clelland, David

Cohen, Harry

Coleman, Donald

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom

Crowther, Stan

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Dalyell, Tam

Darling, Alistair

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Dobson, Frank

Doran, Frank

Douglas, Dick

Duffy, A. E. P.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Eadie, Alexander

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Fatchett, Derek

Faulds, Andrew

Fearn, Ronald

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Fisher, Mark

Flannery, Martin

Flynn, Paul

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Foster, Derek

Foulkes, George

Fraser, John

Fyfe, Maria

Galloway, George

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

George, Bruce

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mildred

Gould, Bryan

Graham, Thomas

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Heffer, Eric S.

Henderson, Doug

Hinchliffe, David

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Hood, Jimmy

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Howells, Geraint

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Illsley, Eric

Ingram, Adam

Janner, Greville

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Kennedy, Charles

Kilfedder, James

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Kirkwood, Archy

Lambie, David

Lamond, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Leighton, Ron

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Litherland, Robert

Livingstone, Ken

Livsey, Richard

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Loyden, Eddie

McAllion, John

McAvoy, Thomas

McFall, John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

McKelvey, William

McLeish, Henry

Maclennan, Robert

McNamara, Kevin

McWilliam, John

Madden, Max

Maginnis, Ken

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Marek, Dr John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Maxton, John

Meacher, Michael

Meale, Alan

Michael, Alun

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

---