| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : It was a privilege to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), whose comments were fundamental to the artificial debate that we are having on the timetable motion. We are contriving to ignore a major reality for young people, which is their entitlement to student grants and, above all, to housing benefit. That hon. Gentleman encapsulated everything that I wanted to say, and I wish simply to endorse the anger that he reflected, albeit in a restrained way.
The Goverment are showing contempt for the House from which the amendments have come, and that could result in problems for us. They are also showing contempt for Members of this House because an issue that is of root importance to students in the north of Ireland will not be debated because of the lack of time.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have accepted no fewer than 17 Lords amendments?
Mrs. Margaret Ewing : Fifteen.
Mr. Mallon : The fact remains that the timetable motion shows contempt for the other place and, as I have explained, for Members of this House. That will greatly
Column 1245
affect our ability to discuss matters vital to youngsters in the north of Ireland, youngsters who up to now have had faith in our democratic processes.When we try to explain to them our inability to discuss issues crucial to their further education and say that we were prevented from doing that because of an archaic rule, they are bound to feel that we consider such procedures to be more important than the future of their education. To explain that away requires a degree of eloquence far exceeding that of any Member.
Mr. David Evennett (Erith and Crayford) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all these issues were debated on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading and that constraints of time will concentrate the minds of speakers in tonight's debate?
Mr. Mallon : I take the hon. Gentleman's point about constraints of time concentrating speakers' minds, but when on crucial issues such as these we resort to the artificiality of the guillotine, we are damaging our democratic processes and insulting the young people whose futures we should be debating.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing : The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) referred to the debates in Committee. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will be aware that, because of the procedures of the House, only one minority party was allocated a place at that stage, and that place was occupied by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). That meant that the SDLP, the Welsh National party, the Ulster Unionists and the SDP were excluded. The House will appreciate why we are vexed at the fact that we shall not have time to debate many issues that concern us, especially as we participated fully at all other stages, when we were able to do so.
Mr. Mallon : The hon. Lady is right, and our only good fortune was that we were admirably represented in Committee by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
As we consider what has happened recently in London and in other British cities, we realise that democracy is a very tender plant indeed which must be nurtured and cosseted. That is equally true of the future of our young people. The guillotine on this issue makes me angry. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Cambridge said more eloquently than I could what I wanted to say. Not only are we showing complete indifference to our position as legislators, but we are showing gross indifference to the young people of the nation and their future educational status.
6.25 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : I am anxious, before deciding how to vote on the allocation of time motion, to raise certain issues. But first I should declare an interest in that I am a member of the court of Brunel university, which is in my constituency.
The University Funding Council wants Brunel to expand its intake of students by 10 per cent. That means that students, because there is not sufficient accommodation on campus, can come to Brunel only if they can find and afford accommodation off campus. In practice, that means accommodation somewhere in Uxbridge, Southall or Ealing.
Column 1246
Brunel needs 400 more units of student accommodation. That need is at present being considered by the university, which hopes to build some of them. But those units can be provided only if the cost of borrowing is spread over the existing student accommodation. That would make it as expensive as off-campus accommodation. If Brunel were to build, say, 600 additional units, the cost of doing that at current interest rates would put those units above that of off-campus accommodation.The cost of off-campus accommodation at Brunel and at other London universities is higher than in any other part of the country. I therefore question whether the amount of the maximum loan facility to be made available to students in London will be sufficient. I had hoped for an opportunity to debate that in relation to Government amendment No. 7. I do not know whether there will be time for that debate if the guillotine motion is approved.
It is a tough guillotine motion. It does not specify a period for the House to debate each amendment, so I have no alternative but to ask the Minister some questions before deciding how to vote on the matter. I say that because the cost of on-compus accommodation at Brunel is, on average, £25 a week. The cost of off-campus accommodation is about £37.50 a week, or £12.50 more.
The Minister will appreciate that, over a 30-week academic year, a student living off campus must find an additional £400 a year, plus the cost of travelling to and from university. We should be given time tonight to debate whether the access funds will be sufficient to allow the university to provide additional financial assistance for students living off campus.
The Minister said that the access funds would be substantially increased. I am pleased about that, and I congratulate the Government on securing that additional funding from the Treasury. I hope that the Minister can put my mind at rest on the important question that I have raised. It affects London universities in particular and those which, like Brunel, have many students living off campus. I hope that the Minister will comment on the extent to which the funding council will be able to allocate funds to the university to help students in that position.
Mr. Jackson : I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have substantially increased the size of the access fund and have made it clear to the funding council that, when they distribute funds to institutions, the Government expect relative housing costs to be a major factor in the formulae which determine distribution. The institutions will take housing costs into account when they make allocations to students in need. I have no doubt that Brunel, which, as my hon. Friend says, is situated in a relatively high-cost area, will benefit from those arrangements.
Mr. Shersby : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will the universities decide how to dispose of the funds allocated to them by the funding council?
Mr. Jackson : It will be entirely a matter for the universities.
Mr. Shersby : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall not detain the House any further. I wanted the opportunity to raise those important points on behalf of a university which is situated just outside Greater London.
Column 1247
6.30 pmMr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central) : It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was not here earlier, when the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), spoke about the guillotine. They did so eloquently and, certainly for someone of my experience, provided a clear insight into what the Government are attempting to do through the motion. The guillotine was clearly planned at least last week by the Government but was withdrawn, in what can be described only as a cynical manoeuvre, to avoid alerting the other place, which was still considering the amendments until Thursday of last week. That further compounded the Government's disarray on the Bill, which is best illustrated by the pull-out of the banks and the confusion surrounding that, which continues to surround how the Student Loans Company will operate. The confusion was further compounded in Committee in the other place last week when the Government were forced to table a new amendment to the Bill. That arose because it became apparent that the offer of loans to people under the age of 18 could render the Student Loans Company liable to criminal proceedings under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
I see that you are now in your place, Mr. Speaker. The subject of the Consumer Credit Act and minors under the age of 18 was never raised in the Chamber nor in Committee. Yet the Government are now attempting to steamroller the Bill on to the statute book without further discussion of that important matter. We have to ask why the Government find a guillotine necessary. The Minister and subsequent Conservative Members who spoke on the motion have failed to justify the need for a guillotine.
For a guillotine to be used on a flimsy four-clause Bill shows that the Government are running scared of their Back Benchers. On the various occasions when the legislation has been discussed in the Chamber, some Conservative Back Benchers have voiced their opposition to the Bill in various ways. It seems to me that the Government are attempting to deny those Back Benchers a further opportunity to air their opposition. That is a shabby tactic, but it is quite in character with the way in which the Government have carried through the Bill. They refused to accept amendments in Committee. They refused to listen to the arguments of Opposition Members in Committee.
Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have had no intention significantly to modify their proposals, despite the strength of opinion held by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the education community. Powerful evidence was presented to hon. Members in Committee, but the Government consistently refused to listen to that opinion. They have ignored the effect that the Bill will have on access and on the costs to students. Those two items are inextricably linked and the Government have refused to recognise that.
Mr. Beggs : Much reference has been made to the 30-week term and housing benefit. Is it not a fact that few landlords will allocate accommodation to students if they receive rent for only 30 weeks?
Mr. Watson : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, because it brings me back to a subject
Column 1248
that I raised in Committee--rents paid by students in the city of Edinburgh. Edinburgh's rents are possibly the second highest in the United Kingdom outside London--with the possible exception of Aberdeen. I quoted a case in Edinburgh that showed clearly that the result of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 was that many landlords had decided that students were no longer suitable tenants and were getting rid of them at every opportunity. Landlords were choosing to change houses available for rent and to sell them.I was unconvinced by the hon. Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who repeated arguments made in Committee about the poll tax. The poll tax has been in existence in Scotland for the past year and during that period landlords have consistently refused to withdraw the rates element of rents demanded of tenants, who now have to pay poll tax independently. The hon. Member for Norwich, North said that he is sure that landlords in Norwich will not do that. Certainly the information that I am receiving from other parts of the United Kingdom proves that that is not the case elsewhere, and that is a further worry to students who are likely to be denied accommodation or, if they are not denied it, asked to pay significantly more. I regret that we do not have the opportunity to discuss housing benefit because it is an important aspect of the Bill. The withdrawal of benefits to students fundamentally hits at the argument that the Government have advanced that the Bill will increase resources to students and take away some of the weight on parents' shoulders. In theory, parents will not be required to make a contribution, or such a large contribution, but in fact, parents who can afford it will be asked by their student sons and daughters to bail them out during vacations when they cannot find employement or are unable to claim housing benefit, unemployment benefit or income support.
It is unfair of the Government to ignore the fact that that will affect precisely the students whom they claim that they want to attract into education--working-class students, whose numbers at universities in the United Kingdom dropped between 1979 and 1988 from 22.5 per cent. to 19.9 per cent. at the same time as the value of the grant was decreasing. I cannot understand why the Government will not take on board the fact that the reason why the number of students from that socio-economic background decreased during that period. The Government have consistently failed to make it clear how the offer of loans to students from such a background will encourage them into higher education in much larger numbers--not just larger numbers--than previously. That is why it is particularly unfortunate that amendment No. 8, which was carried in the other place and which reinstated the payment of housing benefit to students, is not being allowed to be presented this evening. That certainly lets the Government off the hook, but it shows that when the Bill was put under scrutiny in the other place they made a decision based on common sense, and the amendment was carried by a majority of almost two to one.
Throughout its various stages, the Bill has been shown to be universally unpopular and unwanted, except by the Government and those Conservative Back Benchers who have been whipped into the Lobby. As has been demonstrated this evening, the Government do not have
Column 1249
enough confidence in the Bill to submit it to full scrutiny or to submit the amendments carried in the other place to adequate debate. The Government's tactics in introducing the guillotine motion and the sleight of hand with which they did so, bring them no credit whatever. Neither does any aspect of the Education (Student Loans) Bill bring the Government any credit.6.38 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : I respect the opinions of my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), both of whom are distinguished in the House for their independence of mind and the integrity of their views. Normally I find myself very much in agreement with their view on the way in which the business of the House is conducted--or misconducted, as is sometimes the case. However, I feel that there could be a reason for implementing the guillotine, because of the time and the brouhaha expended on the subject of a relatively small change in the way in which the over-privileged are already funded by the under-privileged.
That has already received a great deal of time in the House and in the other place. There is nothing so nauseating as the sight of the privileged pursuing even more privileges. It is the middle classes who resent the Bill. The fact is that 80 per cent. of students come from the middle classes. They are attempting to protect and to some extent extend the great privileges that they already enjoy. Partly on account of birth and partly on account of the financial background of their families, they are able to benefit from a university education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) referred to my personal experience. I come from what is partronisingly called a blue- collar family. I paid all the costs, apart from tuition, of my college and university education. There was no housing benefit or social security benefit in those days. Furthermore, when I began teaching I was expected to pay back the cost of my education by teaching for a number of years. If I had not done so, I should have been expected to pay back the cost of my training. That was accepted. However, society has reached the point at which it is resented if the state does not pay for various things. I do not share that view.
The great majority of people who make a success of their lives have not had a university education. Between 80 and 90 per cent. of the entrepreneurial class--the poor bloody infantry who support the rest of our society--do not go through to the age of 22, or more, as wards of the state who are paid for by their fellow citizens. Those people look askance at the way in which Members of Parliament devote so much of their time to protecting the privileges of those who already have it so good. For that reason, the Government are right to curtail the time that we should spend on debating the issue.
My quarrel with the Bill is that it does not go far enough. There is no reason why those who will enjoy the better things of life, by virtue of their birth, attributes and intellect, should expect yet more of those whose lot it is to leave school at 16, without resentment, and work their way through life, pulling themselves up by their own elbow
Column 1250
grease and boot straps. The less time we spend on debating these privileges and the sooner the full cost of higher education is met by those who benefit from it, the better.The entrepreneurs on whom the wealth and progress of our society depends ask for no privileges from this House. All they ask for is to be allowed to keep as large a proportion of their resources as they can, so that they can be ploughed back into promoting their own self-interest and progress. That is what we should work for. Those who, by birth and intellect, are already endowed with privileges that many people lack should not come to the House, or to the other place, with their begging bowls and ask for yet more assistance from those who work to provide it.
6.43 pm
Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East) : During the last two hours we have heard contorted and specious arguments in support of the motion. For most of the time, we have heard no arguments at all. There was a Second Reading speech by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). As for the speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), at last she came clean as to where the Conservative party was heading in its funding of higher education--towards a system based not on ability to benefit but on ability to pay.
Those who spoke in favour of the motion gave no good reason why this miserable specimen of a Bill should be timetabled. The only argument which might have carried any real conviction--that hon. Members want to make the quickest possible exit from this place for the Easter recess--has not been repeated since the Secretary of State for Education and Science alluded to it. I suspect that when Conservative Members are greeted by their constituents' anger about the poll tax, mortgage interest rates and rent, they will wish that they had stayed here for Easter.
When one considers the allocation of time motion for consideration of the Bill, one wonders whether there is a little-known standing order which provides that anything to do with student loans must be dealt with as near as possible to weekends and public holidays. It is more than a matter of curious coincidence that our first debate on the student loans proposal, almost a year after the White Paper was published, was on a Friday, that the statement about the withdrawal of the banks from the scheme was held back until the last day before the Christmas Adjournment, that the Report stage was on a Thursday and that today is the last full day of business before the Easter recess.
It is all the more bizarre that, having relied on such recreational carrots to drag the Bill along thus far, the Government should decide that they need the big stick of the guillotine as well. As my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) have said, the guillotine cannot be defended. The Bill had not been timetabled previously ; there was no filibustering at any of the earlier stages ; the Lords amendments cover issues not previously debated here, such as compelling higher education institutions to help to administer the scheme, and the implications in relation to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The guillotine was introduced at the last possible moment. The Bill was withdrawn from last week's business in a shabby and cynical maneouvre, thus misleading the other place as to the Government's intentions. As my right
Column 1251
hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, a guillotine motion should be used only in rare circumstances and it should be argued for carefully. We have heard no such careful argument in favour of the motion today.Mr. Simon Hughes : I support all that the hon. Gentleman says and I do not wish to distract him from it. However, to confirm what he said and to deal with a point--just in case the record does not reveal it--raised by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the time that this House has had to debate the Bill since the Second Reading amounts to 10 hours, which was the time spent on Report and Third Reading, and that we have gone from Second Reading to Third Reading in just over two months. It is only just over a month since the Bill was sent to the Lords and returned to us. There has been no delay. The House has not spent an inordinate time debating any of the provisions in this important Bill.
Mr. Smith : The hon. Gentleman is right. We have just seen the bulldozer in operation, and it is unjustifiable. Any impartial observer is left with no other impression than that of a Government running scared. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said yesterday, this is not so much a matter of business management as of crisis management.
What is the purpose of the guillotine? What is the great volume of business that the Government claim justifies its imposition? There are just 17 Lords amendments. Two of them have been ruled out of order on grounds of privilege, three are minor Government drafting changes, 10 are changes initiated or supported by the Government and just two of them reflect Government defeats in the other place--on draft regulations and on repayment terms for disabled students. It is as pathetic as it is insulting that the Government should stoop to the use of the guillotine to bulldoze this measure through. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, in a speech as persuasive as it was passionate, the guillotine is a disgrace to the Conservative party just as it is a disgrace to the House. The Government cannot claim in their defence that our amendments are capricious, trivial or wrecking when we have sought to defend and improve upon the changes made in another place. These are changes to ensure meaningful consultation--something totally absent from the Government's approach ; changes to enable Parliament properly to consider the regulations by which the scheme will operate ; changes to reimburse institutions for their enforced participation in the administration of the scheme ; changes to ensure that the loan does not become more than half of maintenance without primary legislation ; changes to safeguard the position of students with disabilities ; and changes to protect those under 18 and to safeguard against the disclosure of information by the Student Loans Company.
Had we had the chance--we hope still to have it--we would have argued strongly for the reinstatement of housing and other social security benefits, the withdrawal of which will cause much hardship and represent the removal of basic rights of citizenship to which everyone is entitled.
Column 1252
These are not unreasonable changes. They undoubtedly reflect the consensus of the general public, education institutions and students. If hon. Members on the Government Benches had the opportunity to vote freely according to their judgment, I have no doubt that the amendments would be carried here, too. I draw the attention of the House to the words of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) yesterday, when he told the Leader of the House"that some of us care deeply about the future of higher education, and that he cannot guillotine that".--[ Official Report, 3 April 1990 ; Vol. 170, c. 1068.]
We heard from the hon. Member for Cambridge today a testament to the conviction that he expressed yesterday in his moving and dignified speech in defence of the best traditions of the House and against a Government who are abusing them and thereby abusing democracy. The hon. Gentleman's voice should be heard today and hon. Members should follow his advice in the Division Lobby.
A wise Government would listen, take notice and act in accordance with the overwhelming majority opinion on these issues--but then a wise Government, with the best interests of higher education and the country at heart, would not have introduced the student loans scheme or the Bill in the first place. The Bill remains, as it started, a triumph of narrow ideology over common sense and the common interest. The scheme that it would introduce is an expensive administrative nightmare, damaging both to students' welfare and to the national interest, closing avenues of opportunity at the very time when Britain should be opening them up.
Mr. Pawsey rose--
Mr. Smith : No, I cannot give way now.
This guillotine motion, like the Bill that it timetables, could have been brought forward only by a Government deaf to public opinion through arrogance, and arrogant because they do not care. As the Bill is pushed lamely towards the statute book, it bears its makers' mark in its ill- considered provisions which have been a shambles from start to finish.
Like the poll tax, the cost and unfairness and the deep unpopularity of student loans will return to haunt the Prime Minister, who insisted that the Bill should proceed. The Opposition's commitment to grant will be one more reason why we shall be elected to office, when we will repeal this damaging scheme, just as we urge the House to reject this draconian and unnecessary guillotine today. In a phrase which can be taken only as the deepest insult to democracy in this Parliament, the Secretary of State in opening the debate referred to tonight's proceedings as the "wrapping up" stage. I will tell him what is being wrapped up--the Government and their insufferable arrogance are being wrapped up. I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote against this unnecessary, draconian and insulting motion.
6.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson) : All hon. Members will share my admiration of the hyperbolic style of my good friend and neighbour the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I shall be brief in winding up this debate-- although perhaps I may not use such an expression after what has been said about the phrase "wrapping up"--and, in the interests of enabling us to get
Column 1253
on with the debate, I will speak only to the guillotine motion. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to forgive me if, because of this, I do not respond on this occasion to some of the points which have been made but which are outside the scope of the guillotine motion. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to some of my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members who allowed me to intervene in their speeches, thus enabling me, I hope, to clarify some issues. It is common ground in the House that it would be rather nice not to have to use the guillotine. I respect and rather admire, and indeed am sometimes a little terrified by, the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but we all know that as long as we have the right--unusual in comparison with other Parliaments--to speak for as long as we like, the guillotine will be one of the awkward facts of parliamentary life.What I have to say now does not apply to my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), but let me remind Opposition Members of Oscar Wilde's remark that hypocrisy is the tribute which vice pays to virtue. It implies that, while expressions of hypocrisy are to be desired from time to time as reinforcements of virtue, we should not overdo it. As has been observed, Governments of both parties have used the guillotine and doubtless Governments of both parties will do so in future, should there be an occasion when there is a Government of another party. Meanwhile, let us remember that the Bill to which this guillotine relates is only a four-clause Bill. Let me remind the House also that it has undergone no fewer than 90 hours of debate in both Houses. It is interesting to compare this with the other legislation with which I have been involved, the Education Reform Act. Before it was enacted, it was a 235-clause Bill which took up 216 hours in both Houses. I calculate that today's Bill has had no fewer than 22 hours of discussion per clause, compared with 1.3 hours of discussion per clause of the Education Reform Bill. In my opinion, our debate was of high quality. Hon. Members on both sides agreed that the House of Commons Committee stage led to a genuinely constructive and civilised exchange of views, and I pay tribute to Opposition Members, to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and to my colleagues for that.
Debates in the other place are by definition always of a constructive and civilised character. That is no doubt one reason why the Government have accepted no fewer than 17 Lords amendments. Since there has been a suggestion from, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge- Brownhills and for Cambridge that the Government are in some way disregarding the other place, let me give some indication of the substance of those amendments.
We have agreed to consultation before amending schedule 1 ; we have agreed to amendments to schedule 1 by the affirmative resolution procedure ; we have agreed to the affirmative resolution procedure for the first student loan regulations ; we have agreed to amendments in relation to disabled students, for a 50 : 50 ratio for loan and grant, and to extend protection of information in the hands of the Student Loans Company. So there is no doubt that the Bill has been well and extensively debated and has also been amended in important points of detail.
Column 1254
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) adduced two arguments against the guillotine : that the points still to be debated are points of great substance, and that if we go on with the guillotine we shall have only 10 minutes for each amendment. I will finish my remarks now to enable us to debate those amendments because that will enable the House to see for itself whether those assertions are true. It is my belief that we will all agree that the amendments that we now have to consider are not particularly important. Most of them are rather minor and we can safely deal with the important ones in the time we have available to us.Question put :
The House divided : Ayes 289, Noes 212.
Division No. 159] [7.00 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
Batiste, Spencer
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bellingham, Henry
Bendall, Vivian
Benyon, W.
Bevan, David Gilroy
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Body, Sir Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Buck, Sir Antony
Budgen, Nicholas
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butcher, John
Butler, Chris
Butterfill, John
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Carttiss, Michael
Cash, William
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James
Cran, James
Curry, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Devlin, Tim
Dicks, Terry
Dorrell, Stephen
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Dunn, Bob
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
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Hague, William
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Hanley, Jeremy
Hannam, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Harris, David
Hawkins, Christopher
Hayes, Jerry
Heathcoat-Amory, David
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
| Next Section
| Home Page |