House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Apr 1990

Column 1267

Houses and from the general public and interested parties. Therefore, we commend amendment (a) to the House. We welcome the Government's concession and ask hon. Members to vote to improve it so that we can improve democracy and remedy one defect in a very defective Bill.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : If I understood my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science correctly, he asked us to disagree with Lords amendment No. 5. That is a pity, because, although the Bill is extremely short, it gives enormous power to the Secretary of State and transforms the whole system of student financing. I have the greatest possible trust in my right hon. Friend as an individual. He is an extremely good Secretary of State and an honourable and sound man. I do not say that to flatter him because he knows that I do not go in for the flattering of Ministers. However, when passing legislation one must consider carefully that my right hon. Friend will not be Secretary of State for ever. I hope that he will go on to higher things ; he merits them and I am sure that he will earn them in due course.

No Secretary of State should take to himself powers that he is not happy for others to have. That is why I have opposed several proposals during the past 10 years. There has been an unhappy tendency for Secretaries of State to take to themselves overriding powers and, in so doing, to tilt the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature.

It is important for Parliament to have a say in this matter. If regulations are to be brought forward, they should be ones that can be fully debated in every possible sense and changed, and there should be ample time to do so. Although it is difficult for the layman to understand, amendment No. 5, which was passed in another place, is an extremely ingenious way of constraining the power of a Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be. I know that my right hon. Friend has tried hard to meet the wishes and listen to the doubts of those who are doubtful about the Bill, so it is a pity that he should ask the House of Commons to reverse an amendment passed in another place with strong all-party support. Conservative peers were very much to the fore in the debate and in the Lobby. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts about this, even at such a late stage.

The Bill transforms the system of student finance. There are people outside this place, not just students but vice-chancellors and others, who are concerned about it. Only this morning I received a letter from a vice- chancellor who felt that what the House of Lords had done had gone a long way to remove his fears and anxieties, although he still retained some. It would be most unfortunate if we rejected what the other place has done, bearing in mind the objective expertise there. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not ask us to disagree. If he does, I fear that I cannot agree with him.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : I declare an interest as an adviser to the Association of University Teachers, although I have had no communication with it on the subject of the amendment. Like the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I am still hoping that the Government will be persuaded of the merits of the case put by the House of

Column 1268

Lords on amendment No. 5. The reason for my hope is that, in time, the Government seem to come round to my view. Amendment No. 4, which the Government accept, is precisely the amendment I moved in this place on Report and which the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), stoutly resisted. His resistance bore all the marks of tactical resistance, not resistance to a principle.

I do not believe that, in the ensuing weeks, the Ministers suddenly became persuaded of arguments which had not been obvious to them in the first place. The arguments on the issue in amendment No. 4 are so obvious that the negative procedure of the House is a completely inadequate means of dealing with a major issue. It guarantees no debate or parliamentary proceeding. I believe that the Government decided that they had to have a tit-bit for the Lords and some concession that they could offer in another place. Therefore, with great dispatch, when Lady Young moved the amendment, the Government leaped to their collective feet and announced that they were willing to accept the amendment, which is a compromise.

The amendment ensures that the first time that the scheme is brought forward it is the subject of affirmative procedure, which guarantees that there will be a vote in this place and a debate, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House--I think that it would be on the Floor. It was a compromise, in that I and others, including the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), believed that all the regulations should be subject to affirmative procedure. It was a reasonable suggestion in the spirit of compromise, and I am glad that the Government accepted it. It means that, the first time that this major scheme comes forward, we are guaranteed at least a vote on it.

7.45 pm

At that time, all of us said that we needed more than merely a vote. When something so major, which one would expect to be the substance of a Bill, appears before the House in the form of regulations, we should have the opportunity to amend anything that is wrong with it. That was the reason for amendment No. 5, which was moved in another place by Earl Russell. Although it was a Liberal Democrat amendment, it attracted wide support from Members of all parties and it carried the day, albeit with a small majority. If the Government get a majority of one tonight, they too will be satisfied because a majority of one is enough.

Amendment No. 5 is important because it ensures, not just for this House, but for the other place, that when the scheme is brought forward, if there is something wrong with it, the fault can be put right. The Minister is not talking about the real world when he suggests that the amendment is unnecessary, because the scheme can be brought forward and, if there is something wrong with it, Members can vote it down and the Government can take it away, make changes and bring it back again. Can the Minister remember when that was last done? I certainly cannot.

I know what will happen : the Minister will come before the House with a scheme which will be shown to be defective, at least in some particular--it may be a small but important one. The Minister will say, "I recognise that hon. Members have raised an important point, which we would like to get right, but if the House does not pass the proposal tonight some students who do not get a grant will

Column 1269

not receive a loan. If the scheme is not put on the statute book straight away, hardship will be caused. It is too late to take away the regulations and bring them back, amended, another day. We shall look at it for next year. However sensible hon. Members think their points are, it would cause undue delay and hardship to introduce an amendment at this stage."

Mr. Cormack : The hon. Gentleman sounds as if he is rehearsing.

Mr. Beith : Indeed, I am offering the Minister the script which I know he will have to use on that occasion. I guarantee--if I were a betting man, I would put money on it--that he will have to say something like that when the scheme is brought forward.

Anyone who has experienced the recent poll tax debates will know that Ministers have had to make changes on specific issues. An announcement has been made in the past few days that the Government will have to introduce retrospective legislation on caravan rating because, within the legislation they have put forward, they will be unable to achieve the effect which they intended. That sort of thing happens all the time, and it will certainly happen in this instance, when it will be not just the details but the substance of the scheme that is put forward in regulations.

Mr. Simon Hughes : Before my hon. Friend came into the Chamber, there was a debate on the guillotine, in which just such an argument was anticipated. The Secretary of State's greatest argument for the guillotine and for curtailing debates on the amendments was that we should get on with the legislation if the students are to receive their grants by the end of this financial year and the beginning of the new student year. That was exactly the argument used today, and the Secretary of State will undoubtedly be told to use that argument again if the amendment is rejected by the House.

Mr. Beith : My hon. Friend is right, and I know that other hon. Members agree. How much better it would be to have a procedure for amendment there and then. The Minister says that it is not possible to build in such a requirement, but it is possible and it is done. I have moved amendments to census orders arising from the Census Act 1920, under which orders providing for a census are subject to amendment. I have moved just such an amendment, and the procedure set out in the Lords amendment is on similar lines.

If the procedure were in place, the regulations would be much more likely to be properly drafted in the first place. I do not think that the Government will want them to be amended. If the Minister wants to induce a spirit of efficiency and care among his civil servants on this issue, he will find no better mechanism than the certainty that the Government will face the amendment of their regulations. He will find that I have been his ally when he discovers that his civil servants are far more zealous than ever before in their attempts to get the regulations right and consult everyone because they know that there is a serious risk that the Goverment will be exposed to the embarrassment of having the legislation amended.

There is a great deal at stake : the nature of the scheme, the manner of the repayments, the problems that will be faced by students having to repay these loans, and the rules of eligibility--not to mention all the administration. It is important that we be given the opportunity to get those

Column 1270

things right. The procedural difficulties are not insuperable obstacles. On previous occasions this House and the other place have had to work out mechanisms for dealing with amendments to orders. A whole passage in "Erskine May" on page 546 points out that "If the two Houses differ in their amendments, machinery must be improvised for reconciling the differences".

So such amendments have been successfully dealt with in the past, and the procedural obstacles are not real.

The overwhelming case is that we are are enacting by regulation a major scheme that will affect the lives of large numbers of young people. If we are to get that right, it is surely far better that we be able to do what we can do with normal legislation--bring forward amendments. They might even be Government amendments. During the passage of this Bill we have seen how the Government have had to recognise as they go along that some of the legislation was wrong, or how they have wanted to respond to advice that they have received. It would be open to the Government to use the amending procedure that we are recommending here.

I do not see how we can go on showing parties of east Europeans around the House and sending out people to eastern Europe, where countries are developing new democratic Parliaments, telling them to see how we run the show, given our legislative arrangements under which we cannot amend a scheme as fundamental as that for student grants. My noble Friend the Earl Russell proposed a perfectly sensible and well precedented way of allowing amendments, and the Government should accept his method. If they are unwilling to do so, I shall invite the House to affirm its support for this principle

Mr. Simon Hughes : I invite my hon. Friend to reflect that, above all in the context of this Bill, the Government should be minded to accept the amendment. The Bill was launched on the basis that it would be supported by the banks. Something went wrong and the Bill's proposals had to be completely rethought. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that the Government should have understood by now that it is rarely possible to get such measures right first time--the more so on this measure.

Mr. Beith : I have never thought that the Secretary of State was the sort of Minister who thinks that he always gets it right first time. He has always struck me as the sort of man who is prepared to listen to arguments. So I have put an argument to him, and I ask him to reflect on his own experience in this and other matters and to realise that a subject as large as this should come to the House in amendable form. That is the substance of the amendment, and I believe that he and the House should accept it.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : During the debate on the timetable motion, I argued that our debates should be allowed to continue because they would touch on issues that will affect people in future. This debate would have had more sense if it could have gone on longer. The ideas that we need to thrash out and formulate should be legitimately debated, and we should be allowed a procedure which was not only subject to affirmative resolution but allowed amendments.

I almost missed this debate because I slipped out after the timetable motion and the debate on Lords amendment No. 1 lasted only five minutes, which made me wonder why we had spent three hours discussing the guillotine motion when, instead of skipping through some of the

Column 1271

amendments, we might have had more time to deal with others and find out the Government's attitude to them. It would be interesting to hear the Secretary of State explain the Government's attitude to the various proposals in the amendments and to hear what they accept and what they reject. It would have done us no harm to hear such an explanation on the timetable motion.

Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State shouted out that a Lords amendment had been carried by just one vote. That was indicative of the Government's attitude--they have a vast majority, but they do not like admitting to the weight of opinion behind decisions which go against them. One vote is perfectly adequate--if it were not, we might as well pack up and disappear.

Mr. Cormack : As the hon. Gentleman will well remember, Lord Callaghan's Government fell on one vote.

Mr. Barnes : I remember that very well. The Government fell because Tom Swain, the former Member for Derbyshire, North-East, was killed in a motor accident in the constituency that I now represent. But for that accident, the vote would have been tied and, in accordance with precedence, the Government could have carried on for a while--although for how long is another matter.

Mr. Jackson : I made the point about the majority of one not to disparage a majority of one, which is perfectly acceptable, but as an ironic comment on arguments advanced earlier during the guillotine motion debate when the Government were reproached because our majority fell on occasion to 40.

Mr. Barnes : That is significant because the Government have a majority of 150 over the Labour party and a majority of 100 over all parties combined. It would be of great significance if this amendment were agreed to by a majority of one--it would say something about the Government's position in connection with the Bill, and about their general difficulties.

We need an amendment of this type because of the nature of the legislation. This terrible measure of enabling legislation does not enable us properly to debate the items that will form part of the scheme. The legislation is so empty that, when the scheme was turned upside down by the banks' withdrawal, it did not cause a ripple in the Government. That proved, not that the Government had it right or that the Bill was compatible with anything, but that the Bill had run into serious constitutional, parliamentary and procedural problems. The Secretary of State said that there could be some difficulty with the Lords amendment if the two Houses differed in their attitude to proposals that the Government brought forward. But "Erskine May", on page 546, points out

"If the two Houses differ in their amendments, machinery must be improvised for reconciling the differences".

So we should not be perpetually bouncing back and forth waiting for fresh proposals from the Government ; the Government could get together with their Lordships--the other place is not so far away--to try to resolve such issues. If that proved cumbersome, awkward or unusual, it would be due to the Government's having brought forward legislation of this sort. The other place has

Column 1272

attempted to overcome some of those considerable difficulties and its efforts would be further assisted by our amendment.

The affirmative procedure, which can be amended, is essential, for example, in relation to Northern Ireland measures, and this measure is particularly important to Northern Ireland. Nowhere in the United Kingdom will be more affected by the measure than Northern Ireland because of the percentage of the population there involved in higher education and its higher participation rates for people with working-class backgrounds and women compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, Northern Ireland has a significant interest in the measure.

But when the House debates measures which extend legislation to Northern Ireland we are allowed only one and a half or three hours. When we debated the extension of the Education Reform Act 1987 to Northern Ireland we were allowed only three hours. Yet that measure contained 167 clauses and 10 schedules and its principles went beyond the Education Reform Act--for example, in its measures encouraging education for mutual understanding. Without those new principles it could have been dealt with by a negative procedure and there could only have been a debate on a prayer which would have dragged it on to the agenda for us to discuss. We do not want to be in that situation in this legislation which makes the position of Northern Ireland worse. For them we should learn from some of the procedural niceties to be found in "Erskine May", some of which were employed in the other place and gave rise to the amendment.

Enabling legislation which requires measures only to be rubber-stamped makes it essential that the two Houses of Parliament should between them try to discover procedures whereby the Government can be put on the right track even if the measure itself is not correct. I hope that the Government will change their mind on the amendments.

8 pm

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) referred to exchanges that took place in another place on whether or not the affirmative resolution should apply to administrative arrangements. We took the view that we were amply fulfilling the commitment that the noble Lord gave in relation to making the affirmative resolution apply to the regulations.

The administrative detail of the scheme is subject to the normal processes of scrutiny by various other parliamentary methods. The Secretary of State will be responsible and accountable for the use of the funds that are required for the administration of the scheme, and he must secure them through estimates agreed to by Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee will be able to inquire into the efficient administration of the scheme, and we have also promised to publish the company's annual report.

The Bill deliberately makes the terms of the scheme which affect individuals enactable through regulations and subject to the usual form of parliamentary scrutiny, which we are discussing now. It is right to leave the details of administration, which is a different matter, subject to the mechanisms that I have just described, and not to go into the need for a further layer of scrutiny that would be involved in the affirmative procedure on administrative issues. If we start to think about some of the

Column 1273

administrative issues, we see that they are inappropriate for the affirmative procedure. They include such things as contracts of employment for employees and so on. Therefore, we rightly fulfilled our commitment.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to amendment No. 4. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I listened carefully to the debate on that amendment, which we thought was rather ingenious and which dealt with the point that on the first set of regulations there was a greater issue than in subsequent amendments. We were tempted to respond positively during that debate, but we felt that we needed some time for reflection to see whether there were any snags that we had not thought of before we agreed to the amendment. Therefore, we took it away and used the opportunity of the debate in the other place to accept the principle of it. It is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman that he clearly impressed us with the arguments in the debate.

I regret that I cannot say the same about the arguments that we have heard tonight on amendment No. 5. There are a number of problems. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for his kind words and I want to make a point that I hope he will make to his vice- chancellor who felt that the Bill had been considerably improved in the other place. It is important to note that we are accepting most of the amendments from the other place, so if they are improvements, as we agree they are, they have been included in the Bill.

My objection to amendment No. 5, in addition to those that I have stated, is that it would involve a considerable change to the normal affirmative procedure that deals with regulations. The Census Act is unusual. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made an interesting point when, by a slip of the tongue, he referred to student grants and the negative resolution procedure. In fact, the negative resolution procedure does apply to the regulations for student grants. We are going further in having the affirmative resolution for the first set of regulations. We were originally basing our approach on the student grant system, and the student loan arrangements have pretty well the same implications for a large number of students--the changes in regulations that one might wish to make from time to time--as student grants. There is a clear and direct precedent for what we are doing.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that it will be necessary from time to time to make changes to regulations, and I accept that. We have said clearly that we shall be reviewing the scheme each year and we would expect to make changes to regulations from time to time. But that is a normal process. The flexibility that we have to do it through regulations gives us, as I have constantly said, the benefit of being able to make those changes quickly.

Mr. Cormack : My right hon. Friend is dealing with the matter with his customary courtesy, but does he accept that much hardship can be caused in a year? I believe implicitly that my right hon. Friend wants to improve on matters that have gone wrong, but how much better it would be to improve them before they went wrong.

Mr. MacGregor : We shall obviously be looking carefully at all the reviews and listening to many points made by colleagues in the House as well as others outside before we make any regulations. I hope that there would

Column 1274

not be real hardship as a result of a delay from one year to another. I am not persuaded that having a special procedure, as this would be, to apply to those sets of regulations, allowing amendments to be made as they go through the House, would necessarily make that any less likely to occur. I hope that it will not. But it is not unknown for regulations to be wrongly drafted and for other regulations to follow quickly. I have myself, sometimes with some irritation, seen that happen.

But the most important point, apart from the one that I have already made, is that the amendment involves a considerable change to the normal affirmative procedure. Some hon. Members may like to see that. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) in relation to Northern Ireland. But it would involve a significant change in the normal procedures of the House, which we should not make lightly in one Bill.

The regulations that we shall be carrying through are similar to a range of other Government schemes where affirmative or negative procedures apply to regulations. In my previous capacity as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I had to take regulations through the House on a considerable number of Government schemes. That is a perfectly normal process and that is what should apply here. Therefore, I stick to my view and invite the House to accept Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but to disagree with amendment No. 5 and amendment (a).

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

Lords Amendment : No. 5, in page 2, line 18, at end insert-- "(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament ; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the draft to be amended the Secretary of State shall withdraw the draft and shall prepare a draft in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.

(8) No resolution shall be passed by either House of Parliament under subsection (7) above in respect of a draft after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft was laid before that House ; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

(9) If, on the expiry of the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (8) above, no resolution requiring amendment of the regulations has been passed by either House of Parliament, the draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

(10) Where the Secretary of State withdraws a draft under subsection (7) above, he shall lay an amended draft before Parliament and the amended draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mr. MacGregor.] The House divided : Ayes 256, Noes 198.

Division No. 160] [8.10 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Allason, Rupert

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkinson, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Batiste, Spencer

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Benyon, W.

Column 1275

Bevan, David Gilroy

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Body, Sir Richard

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Bowis, John

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

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

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Budgen, Nicholas

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butler, Chris

Butterfill, John

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Carttiss, Michael

Cash, William

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Chope, Christopher

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Couchman, James

Cran, James

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

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Devlin, Tim

Dicks, Terry

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dunn, Bob

Durant, Tony

Dykes, Hugh

Eggar, Tim

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Evennett, David

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Fallon, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Fookes, Dame Janet

Forman, Nigel

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Fox, Sir Marcus

Freeman, Roger

French, Douglas

Fry, Peter

Gale, Roger

Gardiner, George

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Gill, Christopher

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Goodlad, Alastair

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Gow, Ian

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Gregory, Conal

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Grist, Ian

Ground, Patrick

Hague, William

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hanley, Jeremy

Hannam, John

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

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Harris, David

Hawkins, Christopher

Hayes, Jerry

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Hill, James

Hind, Kenneth

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Holt, Richard

Hordern, Sir Peter

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Hunter, Andrew

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Irvine, Michael

Irving, Sir Charles

Jack, Michael

Jackson, Robert

Janman, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Key, Robert

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Knapman, Roger

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Knowles, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Lang, Ian

Lee, John (Pendle)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Maclean, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Major, Rt Hon John

Malins, Humfrey

Mans, Keith

Marland, Paul

Marlow, Tony

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Maude, Hon Francis

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Mellor, David

Miller, Sir Hal

Mills, Iain

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Mitchell, Sir David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Morrison, Sir Charles

Moss, Malcolm

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Mudd, David

Neale, Gerrard

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Nicholls, Patrick

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Norris, Steve

Next Section

Home Page