| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Newton : I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point.
Column 250
Although I cannot recommend the new clause to the House, that is not the same as declining to recognise the concern expressed by hon. Members of all parties or as being unwilling to seek to offer some clear assurance of our determination to fulfil our responsibilities to those with preserved income support entitlements.Before I comment on my approach to the future increases of income support limits, I want to make two important points about two aspects of the Bill which were discussed extensively in Committee, and about the powers that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State proposes to take under clause 40. They are important in judging the balance of policy in this area.
First, as the House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend's intention under clause 40 is to bring forward regulations that will enable local authorities to top up preserved entitlements--as they may now, and in some cases do--for people under pensionable age. Their ability in that respect will be extended to people in nursing homes. That power will, as now, extend to people over pensionable age if the authority concerned had been topping up for two years or more before they reached that age.
Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend also intends to ensure, through an amendment to this Bill--I know that this subject was the topic of considerable discussion in Committee--that local authorities will continue to have the role that they have always had, and which applies in the present system, to act as providers of last resort for those over pensionable age by making places available in their own residential accommodation to those whom they judge would otherwise be made homeless. I stress that not because I suggest that it answers the concerns tonight, but because it is relevant and answers the concern expressed elsewhere--which I share--that, as a result of inadvertence in drafting, an important part of the rights of those already in homes was being altered in an unintended way by the Bill : that is, the withdrawal of the right to be accommodated in part III accommodation should the need arise. It is important to ensure that that right is preserved.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen) : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what the many of us whose constituents are at the stage where they could be turned out, and whose relatives have no more money and whose local authority has no accommodation, are to tell them?
Mr. Newton : I hope I made it clear that I was raising the point because it has been important in the context of the discussions on this matter as a whole, but that I was not presenting it as an answer to the concerns that have been expressed, and I was about to touch on the social security points that have been made in the debate. Before departing from my comments on the Bill, I should say--this has been the subject of considerable discussion here and in Committee--that my right hon. and learned Friend has asked me to underline his firm commitment to monitoring carefully future developments on the use of the power under clause 40. The House will know that that is a wide power and that it was inserted in the Bill in consultation with me. It gives a great deal of flexibility to respond, should experience show that further steps are needed in respect of action by local authorities.
Column 251
I have deliberately put those points first because I recognise that the focus of the debate has been about, and the request to me by Members in all parts of the House has been for me to recognise, the importance of the social security dimension of the problem. I assure the House--I do so with more than conventional strength--that I have listened carefully to what has been said in almost all of the debate and that I can give a number of undertakings which, I must point out, do not constitute specific commitments about what financial limits will be in place, for example in April 1991, and about the spirit in which I shall approach that difficult task in the light of the important points that have been made in the debate. As hon. Members--certainly the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), and others who play an important role in that Committee--will be aware, the Social Services Select Committee has recently produced an important report containing a number of points, not least on the need to improve the quality and quantity of information on which decisions about social security entitlement in this area can be based.The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will acknowledge, in the way in which he normally approaches these issues, that that difficulty has faced successive Ministers and Social Services Select Committees for some time, and not only in respect of the information that we gather through the social security system, which is dependent on the accuracy--not always to be guaranteed--of the information from private and voluntary homes, especially perhaps the former. In some ways, the Laing and Buisson report, to which I and others have referred, revealed the difficulty. The response rate was only 28 per cent., and it left a number of question marks over the validity of the information as a whole. There is also the problem, in assessing precisely what information one requires and how best to get it, that many homes do not cater for residents or potential residents who are likely to be dependent on Department of Social Security payments. So there are difficult issues as to precisely about which homes one needs the information on which to base realistic judgments concerning social security entitlement.
Having said all that to demonstrate the difficulties that have faced us, I should say clearly that I accept that we need more and better information, and when I respond to the Select Committee, as I hope to do before long, I shall make specific proposals to meet the suggestion in one of its recommendations on that front.
Mr. Frank Field : I am sure that not only the Select Committee but the whole House is grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurances about his desire to collect better statistics. Taking collectively our elderly constituents who are not having their fees paid in full--this was stated earlier in the debate--each hon. Member has the equivalent of two whole streets of people facing eviction. These are frail, elderly, often confused old people. Although we are grateful that in future we shall have better statistics, we want answers from the Minister about what we should do with those 160 on average elderly people whom each of us has in our constituencies facing possible eviction.
Column 252
Mr. Newton : I understand the hon. Gentleman's point ; he made it in his speech. The new clause, however, relates to the position after April 1991. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that I can respond now to a suggestion about a regime to be set up in 12 or 13 months' time lacks the reasonableness that I expect from him. I am seeking to show, as clearly and as forthcomingly as I can, how I propose to respond to the concern that is reflected in the new clause--to which I am properly directing my attention- -about the position after April 1991. 10.15 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : In bracketing nursing care homes and residential care homes together, my right hon. Friend has not addressed the special needs of nursing homes. In the past four years there has been a welcome increase of about 50 per cent. in nurses' pay, which constitutes about 60 per cent. of the direct operating costs of nursing homes. In that period Government support has increased by 17 per cent., while the direct operating costs of nursing homes have increased by 39 per cent. There is a 20 per cent. shortfall. Does not my right hon. Friend think that he should make special provision for nursing homes, although he may not fully meet what we want for residential care homes?
Mr. Newton : I acknowledge the need to examine the particular circumstances of certain types of home. If my hon. Friend's memory is long enough--we go back to a period when I was the Minister for Social Security- -he will remember that that problem was clearly acknowledged in 1985 and 1986 by substantial increases in the limits for nursing homes. That means that in the past five or six years--since the present arrangements started- -there has been a significant real increase in help for nursing homes. That is not to say that I will not examine the special case of nursing homes. I give my hon. Friend that clear undertaking.
Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : To use my right hon. Friend's words, there is a significant and real problem that is widely recognised. Can he hang the phraseology and accept the principle?
Mr. Newton : I am not absolutely clear what the principle is. Is my hon. Friend asking me to accept the principle of the new clause--that we should measure the gap between what a home is charging and what income support is available without regard to the factors that I have mentioned, including whether it is reasonable to expect accommodation to be provided at public expense, regardless of how elaborate it may be? That is what the new clause says, and for that reason I cannot give my hon. Friend the simple answer that he obviously wants.
Mr. Cormack : I am not seeking to trip up my right hon. Friend ; I am merely trying to help him. There is a problem that is widely recognised and broadly identified in the new clause. There is a principle there that can be accepted. Can my right hon. Friend say unequivocally that he accepts it, and that in another place a Government-devised clause will be introduced to meet the essential points that have been made repeatedly during this debate?
Mr. Newton : Several of my hon. Friends have made suggestions relating to the possibility of greater geographical variation of limits. More particularly, there has been the suggestion referred to several times by the
Column 253
hon. Member for Birkenhead, adverting to an important speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, that it may be possible, using the information that will become available as a result of practical decisions and negotiations by local authorities after 1991, to reflect what I think my hon. Friend wants, which is income support limits that he would regard as more realistic than those which he is looking at today.Sir David Price (Eastleigh) : Does my right hon. Friend accept the conclusion in the Select Committee's report that
"the problem is basically an expression of present inadequacies in the level of social security benefits. It is not caused by the plans in the White Paper, but it will be exacerbated by them"
so it is open to an immediate solution?
Mr. Newton : As I said, the new clause is directed at the position after April 1991. Therefore, my comments are properly directed principally to that end. In the course of considering the uprating of the income support rates following the £10 increase that is about to come into effect, which I announced in the uprating statement last October, and in looking ahead at future upratings which have been the focus of concerns expressed in the debate, I shall look at--again I use the phrase with more than conventional force--the points that have been made about geographical variation and, in particular, at the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton.
Geographical variation already applies to London. I looked at the matter carefully in the course of making the decision last October about the uprating that is about to come into effect, and I was predisposed in its favour. However, I came to the conclusion that there was no sufficiently safe basis for drawing geographical distinctions in the way that some people have urged, not least for the reason that has been echoed in the debate--that the apparently common sense presumption that costs are likely to be higher in the south-east than in the north-west did not appear to be borne out entirely by the information that we had at our disposal. Without a secure basis for drawing up such distinctions, I thought it best to put the £100 million of additional resources into the rates generally.
My reservations at that time about geographical limits have been reflected in some of the comments in the debate. I shall look seriously at the scope for greater geographical variations, which might be particularly important to some of my hon. Friends from Kent and Hampshire, for example, but I am much more attracted to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton that we should make greater use of something that could be dealt with on a rather more localised basis--I doubt whether it could be used in each local DSS office area--which is what local authorities will negotiate on individual cases rather than with actual homes.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : We understand that my right hon. Friend is a compassionate man, but does he accept that this is not just a matter of regional variation? We are not talking about statistics ; we are talking about people. Does my right hon. Friend understand the point that was made at the beginning of the debate about whether, if people are not being exploited--I hope that there is a way of checking that--the Government are willing to protect them, or do people have to go into old-fashioned geriatric wards? If my right hon. Friend can answer that, we shall know which way to vote.
Column 254
Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend has asked me a question that I can answer in reasonably straightforward terms. It is certainly our wish to protect the kind of people who have been the focus of so much concern in this debate. The cause of my unwillingness to accept the new clause as it stands is that it would not enable me to fulfil the other half of what my hon. Friend has pressed upon me, which is to prevent exploitation in some circumstances, including exploitation of the very people whom we are seeking to help.
I said that I wished to say a word or two more about the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, endorsed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, about using the additional information that will become available from 1991 onwards. It must be acknowledged that there will not be much information around in advance of 1991. There are, of course, a number of uncertainties about precisely how the new system will operate in this respect with local authorities. From my conversations with, for example, leaders of the Association of Directors of Social Services, and with some of the charitable and voluntary bodies, it is clear that thought is being given to and discussions are taking place on negotiating in certain circumstances on a national or regional basis rather than leaving the negotiation to individual local authorities. So we would have to take account of that. It might be helpful in some ways, but it does not lend itself straightforwardly and simply to the sort of proposition that the hon. Gentleman was urging on me.
Equally, there may well be people in homes in which local authorities would not choose to place people, in which case that would not give us the sort of information that is required. Again, it is a complicating factor in the point that has been pressed on me. There is the possibility that some local authorities will negotiate packages of care and contracts that are not directly comparable with the arrangements under income support.
I mention those points only to show that it is not possible for me simply to say snap to the proposition urged on me at this moment, but that does not detract in any way from my undertaking to seek, in considering how we are to carry out uprating and respond to the concerns that have been expressed from all parts of the House, to use the better practical information that will arise, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead has stressed, from the workings of the new system.
Mr. Rowe : Will my right hon. Friend also undertake that in that important survey of the information as it becomes available he will include a regular survey of the number of places in residential homes that remain available? At present there is serious danger that the introduction of the new system and the shortfall that we have been discussing will lead to an incomparably rapid closure of very large numbers of homes.
Mr. Newton : I am not sure that I accept the latter part of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I can certainly respond with a clear-cut yes to the first part of what he said.
Sir George Young : My right hon. Friend has been most helpful in outlining a possible solution. Does he have the powers to pay income support to residents on the basis that he has just outlined? If he does not, is he prepared to amend the Social Security Bill to give himself those powers?
Column 255
Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend refers to the basis that I have just outlined. I have indicated some convincing reasons, I think and certainly hope, why the simple proposition that income support limits shall be based on what local authorities pay in particular homes is not one to which I can readily assent in quite that form, for the reasons that I have given. We have extensive powers to set limits. My intention would be to use those powers in a way which made use of the sort of information to which my hon. Friend has referred. If on further reflection in the aftermath of the debate--I shall certainly do some further reflection--I come to the conclusion that there is an additional power that I could sensibly take to assist us in dealing with these problems in the future, I would be prepared to seek the appropriate amendment to the Social Security Bill.It is in the nature of the changes on which we are embarked, with widespread agreement on the objectives, that no one can be certain a year ahead of all the circumstances at the time, but I hope that what I have been able to say in explaining to the House why I cannot accept the new clause has shown our readiness not only to acknowledge legitimate concerns but to do everything to meet them, consistent with the aim we all share, which is the best interests of people in these homes.
10.30 pm
Mr. Robin Cook : I am conscious that the House wishes to come to a decision and I shall make my response to the debate brief. We have had a full debate since I initiated it some five hours ago. Many hon. Members have addressed the House. I think that those who have been present throughout would agree that the debate was without party spirit. In my concluding remarks I shall try to address the matter again without party spirit, as I sought to do in my opening remarks. Before turning to the Secretary of State's speech, may I say that I was impressed time and again by the way in which so many hon. Members who addressed the question with the open mind came back to the same two difficult questions posed early in the debate by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).
The first question is, if we say that it is right and proper that there should be a gap between income support payments and the charges levied by residential care homes, who do we say should meet the gap and pay the extra? It cannot be the residents, because they are on income support. By definition they have no means themselves to meet the gap. I noticed that the Secretary of State did not reply to that question which has lingered throughout the debate. I pose it to him again. Who does he imagine will fill the gap if he does not? Is it assumed that it will be the relatives? If so, what is assumed to be a reasonable contribution from relatives, who are themselves frequently pensioners? It is a question to which local authorities would like to know the answer, because from April of next year they will accept the responsibility for new residents. Are they expected to look for a contribution from relatives in the way that we seem to be implying in the Bill?
The second question that ran through the debate is very simple. Those same local authorities are expected from April of next year to negotiate payments to private residential care homes for the residents who will enter the homes from that date. It is assumed that they will be capable of negotiating presumably reasonable charges
Column 256
which will not result in exploitation of the public purse or unreasonable profits for those running the homes. Although it is assumed that local authorities will be capable of doing that from April of next year, we are told there is no way in which the Department of Social Security can achieve the same in relation to those who are already in private residential care homes. If the Department of Social Security cannot do it, what is to stop the Department using as its local benchmark the figure that local authorities can negotiate, using block contracts? Or are we seriously being asked to accept a position which may exist from April of next year in which the local authority payments may be higher than the income support levels being paid to private residents living in the same residential care homes, and unable to meet a payment which the local authority accepts as reasonable?I want to respond to some of the Secretary of State's replies. It would be unreasonable not to begin by saying that he addressed the House with his characteristic urbanity and frankness which I remember. I remind him that a telling speech was made by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). He said that it would not be enough to ask us to wait for an uprating in April 1991, which is more than a full year away.
I have read the submissions from the many voluntary organisations that have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it is clear that by April 1991 thousands of elderly people will have faced eviction from residential care homes because they cannot afford the fees. The Secretary of State referred to safeguards. What safeguards can he offer to the House? What comfort can he offer to people who face the prospect of eviction within the next 12 months? [ Hon. Members-- : "What would you do?"] I have moved a new clause that is drafted to address the matter. If hon. Members want to do something about it, they should support the new clause.
Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. The new clause is directed towards producing something that will happen in April 1991.
Mr. Cook : I was going to address the points about my new clause later, but I will deal with them now.
I am aware that the new clause is not a thing of beauty or great perfection. In my many years in this House moving from the Back Benches behind the Government to the Opposition Front Bench, I have never produced an amendment or new clause that did not turn out to be technically deficient in 15 different ways. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Health has been uncharacteristically silent throughout the debate. It would assist our proceedings if he remained silent until it ends. I aspire to exchange places with the Secretary of State for Social Security because, if that were to happen, some day I might be able to move an amendment that was not technically defective.
I am prepared to consider the issue of the commencement date. If safeguards are lacking and my safeguards are not sufficiently tightly worded, I am perfectly content to amend them ; all those details can be addressed in another place. We are not concerned now with a Committee stage, line-by- line examination of the new clause. We are concerned now with whether the clause should be added to the Bill. That brings us to the issue of principle.
Column 257
The Secretary of State did not simply ask the hon. Member for Chislehurst to wait until April 1991. I noted carefully the two points on which he was specific about what he might do in April 1991. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he is always candid, although his candour may not always help him. He was frank and there were only two specific points on uprating next year which he is willing to look again.The right hon. Gentleman's first assurance was that there would be more information. I would be the last person to resist more information. However, we know enough to reach a judgment on the issue. Over the next three days hon. Members will hear me say that on many occasions. I have received more material and briefings from so many organisations about new clause 1 than about any other. We do not require more information ; we need action to resolve the problems. The second point that the Secretary of State offered to consider was geographical variation. With his characteristic candour the Secretary of State was frank and admitted that we are not dealing with a problem that is confined to any one region. It is found in virtually every region. My hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) all addressed the House passionately about cases in their constituencies. I fear that those problems would not be addressed by a new regional variation. If we are to resolve this problem, we must look not only at Kent and Hampshire, but across Britain.
That brings me to the remarks that passed between the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). When the hon. Gentleman intervened, the Secretary of State said to him, "What is the issue of principle?" The issue of principle on which the new clause stands is the principle as it affects those many elderly people, now numbering 100,000 or so, who entered residential care on the clear understanding that the state had undertaken to provide them with the income support to meet the charges of those homes and to meet their subsistence while resident in such a home. The issue of principle is whether the House is willing to renege on that commitment and on its contract with those people on the basis that we never said--although we never denied--that it was intended to meet the full charges of those homes. To me that is an important issue of principle because it touches on the integrity and the probity of our standing as a House, willing to respond to the needs of our constituents.
It was said by the Minister--and spectacularly by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)--that if my new clause was passed it could result in some exploitive landlords, providers of luxurious accommodation, ripping off the public purse. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes held up the spectacle of us, through the new clause, subsidising owners of private care homes who wake up their residents with a glass of sherry every morning. I could accept the argument that there is a danger of our subsidising exploitive and luxuriant accommodation if only a minority of homes were unable to get within the income support limits. However, the truth is that the great majority of homes cannot live within the income support limits. Never mind the profit-making sector, some homes run by voluntary organisations, which are not making a profit, exploitive or otherwise, cannot get within them.
Column 258
In my opening speech, I drew the attention of the House to the case of a home that is run by nuns, with a vow of poverty, who cannot get within the income support limits. No morning sherry in that case, I suspect. If one looks across the broad swathe of provision, it is patent that the present income support levels are wholly unrealistic.The Secretary of State warns us against making an open-ended commitment, but I warn him of the open-ended commitment that will result if we do not pass the new clause or something like it. I advise the Secretary of State for Health that I am referring to the open-ended commitment of the NHS to take back the people who might be put on the streets from the private residential care homes. I cannot imagine a more expensive or a more open- ended commitment than that.
Mr. Barry Porter : I have followed the arguments of the last half or three quarters of an hour with care and understood every question that has been asked, but I have not understood one answer. Am I to understand-- perhaps either the hon. Gentleman or someone else could tell me--that there is a danger, a probability or a certainty that some old people will be removed from their present accommodation? [ Hon. Members-- :"Yes."] If that be the case, how can anybody support it? [Interruption.]
Mr. Cook : If my hon. Friends will permit me to continue, it has been in my mind to mention to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) that under the rules of procedure only I could respond to his question, but I am beaten to the punch. Hon. Members of all parties know that many people, including their own constituents, face precisely that risk.
May I conclude with this point, which I address to Conservative Members as they make up their minds about how to vote? I am confident that, if we carry the new clause, Ministers will move rapidly to correct in the other place any imperfections of drafting. I am not equally confident that if Conservative Members support the Government in the vote on the principle of the new clause, they will move equally rapidly to solve the problem. This is the chance that the House has to tackle the problem. This is the chance that we have to do justice to those constituents who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a distressing, desperate financial crisis to which there is no end in sight. I urge the House not to lose that chance. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :
The House divided : Ayes 256, Noes 253.
Division No. 113] [10.44 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Allason, Rupert
Allen, Graham
Alton, David
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashton, Joe
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Beckett, Margaret
Beith, A. J.
Bell, Stuart
Bendall, Vivian
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Bermingham, Gerald
Blair, Tony
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Boyes, Roland
Bradley, Keith
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Buchan, Norman
Buckley, George J.
Caborn, Richard
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Column 259
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Cartwright, John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clay, Bob
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Coleman, Donald
Colvin, Michael
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Cormack, Patrick
Cousins, Jim
Cox, Tom
Crowther, Stan
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Dr John
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Day, Stephen
Devlin, Tim
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Doran, Frank
Douglas, Dick
Duffy, A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
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
Gardiner, George
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
George, Bruce
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Golding, Mrs Llin
Goodhart, Sir Philip
Gordon, Mildred
Gould, Bryan
Graham, Thomas
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Hardy, Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Hayes, Jerry
Henderson, Doug
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Home Robertson, John
Hood, Jimmy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Hoyle, Doug
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ingram, Adam
Irving, Sir Charles
Janner, Greville
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Kennedy, Charles
Kilfedder, James
Kirkwood, Archy
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Lamond, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Lewis, Terry
Livingstone, Ken
Livsey, Richard
| Next Section
| Home Page |