House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 May 1990

Column 1063

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has said that, in his experience, disputes often blow up unexpectedly. I could cite an example from my own experience. In a previous incarnation, I was a health and safety representative on a national newspaper. I was a member of the mechanical committee, on which there were trade union and management representatives. It did not deal with pay or conditions ; it dealt with the state of the machinery, and with such things as the ventilation system.

On one occasion, we had a problem with the plates on a machine. Hon. Members will be familiar with the term "hot metal" ; in those days there were hot metal plates on rotary presses, made of lead and other metals. The problem occurred when the plates started to break up on the print run. That was dangerous, as the plates were clamped on to the cylinders of high-speed rotary machines. If the plates broke, the centrifugal force sent the pieces of metal flying like shrapnel. As hon. Members can imagine, it was extremely dangerous. The technical director did not know why the plates were breaking up. Tests were made, and he genuinely tried to find out the answer. We worked at night ; he worked during the day, and at night was lucky enough to be in bed. He said that if the problem recurred we should shut down the unit on the press and not touch it until he returned in the morning, so that he could investigate what had happened. There were many units on the press, including spare units. One night, as I was sitting in my office, I had a message that a plate had broken up again. I went to the machine room and told the machine operators that they were not to touch the unit, but to leave it until the technical director returned in the morning to examine it. However, a new junior member of the management came on to the scene and told the men to strip the unit, to put another load of plates on to the same unit and to continue with the job. I told him to hang on : we were following the technical director's instructions and leaving the unit as it was. He then got stroppy, and told us to get the unit stripped and to put new plates on.

Obviously we were in something of a dilemma, but the machine operators did as I had suggested. The junior manager took umbrage, saying that we were to finish for the night and that there would be no paper. He then stormed off. I chatted with the men and we decided that his reaction had been over the top and silly, and we produced the paper that night without any management. We got on better than usual, as there was no harassment from management--we had discovered that they were not really necessary. We even produced the paper for a second night. The Daily Telegraph published an article about the dispute, but it could not understand that we were taking what was considered to be industrial action--although we were continuing to work-- for reasons of health and safety rather than money.

I have no doubt that there are many incidents such as the one I have referred to. I shall not mention the channel tunnel--although others may-- as the Select Committee will take evidence on the matter. Such circumstances could arise at any time, and the workers should have the appropriate security and protection. The Minister agrees with that in principle, but the position is indeterminate. New clause 1 would provide the clarity that we need. People who decline to work in dangerous conditions should be protected. The Government should accept the new clause, or explain why not.

Column 1064

Mr. Wallace : My speech follows the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton)--the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment--who expressed misgivings about clause 7. The speeches of the hon. Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) showed that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that clause 7--the effects of which the new clause tries to mitigate--is serious, as it goes to the heart of individual rights. When I examined the Bill before it went into Committee, my initial reaction was that it was not worth trying to amend it, as that would give it some respectability. I considered it fundamentally unjust and unfair. However, some effort must be made to mitigate its effect.

Questions of health and safety dominated our Committee debates, and I believe that new clauses 1 and 4 and the amendments of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North have tried to address the matter. Without some mitigation, we have what is tantamount to a victimisers' charter. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West drew some parallels with first world war generals in the way that clause 7 is drafted.

The scenes that I fear are more reminiscent of the second world war. One can imagine an unscrupulous employer faced with unofficial action saying, "I shall select five workers at random each week and dismiss them unless you go back to work." The Bill opens up such opportunities to unscrupulous employers.

7 pm

The Minister has been generous in giving way, but he has not shown that he has grasped our argument. I believe that he genuinely wants improvements to be made in health and safety, but he did not say anything to suggest that he would take action to give substance to that desire. He seemed also to think that we were talking about defining what is and what is not an industrial dispute. If that were so, one could imagine a tribunal having to decide whether an industrial dispute was taking place on matters quite unrelated to health and safety. That may well happen, but we are talking about cases in which it is beyond doubt that an industrial dispute has been occasioned by the fact that employees are no longer prepared to stand for circumstances that they believe put their health and safety at risk.

We are not talking about one individual who--to use the Minister's words-- simply refuses to do something because a health and safety issue has arisen ; we are talking about circumstances in which a group of employees in a workplace have been becoming more and more frustrated over a period of weeks, or perhaps months, with what they regard as their employer's failure to observe health and safety regulations. One incident may spark off that collective action. That is the sort of action that Opposition Members and, I think, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), are trying to address. We are talking about employees using collective action to pressurise their employer to come up to scratch and provide decent safe conditions in the workplace.

The Minister argued that the provision might open up a can of worms--a large loophole. With respect, he does not seem to have considered in detail the terms of new clause 1, which demands that the employee has

"a genuine and reasonable belief"

Column 1065

that the employer was acting in breach of his statutory duty. Clearly, if a spurious belief were used to try to justify unofficial action, that would not be covered by the new clause, as the test that it involves is a demanding one.

The Minister also said that the new clause had a sting in its tale because the words

"other matters connected with the terms and conditions of the employees of the employer"

could refer to so many other matters. But that phrase does not stand on its own. The new clause refers to a breach or perceived breach of statutory duty with regard to terms and conditions of employment. We are not, therefore, talking about any other matter. The definition is a narrow one. If the Minister wishes to give substance to his oft-repeated claim to be genuinely interested in health and safety, he should accept that this is one very narrow area and that those who participate in unofficial industrial action from the best motives connected with their own health and safety should not be subjected to possible victimisation by an unscrupulous employer.

Mr. Cryer : I shall be brief, because I know that we have a number of other subjects to cover.

New clause 1 has extremely modest aims and ambitions and any reasonable Government would accept it, but I shall speak principally in support of new clauses 7 and 8, which concern the right of workers to call in a health and safety inspector if they believe that safety standards are being jeopardised and to obtain that inspector's approval of the safety standards of the operation before the work recommences. That is an eminently reasonable request, as any serious and objective study would recognise.

If I said that 413 people had been killed in nine years as a result of terrorist outrages, the House would be crowded, there would be expressions of horror and the Government would be agreeing to introduce legislation to prevent a recurrence. But 413 people in the mines and quarries industry died between 1979 and 1988. Each year, accidents take their toll of life and limb, and several thousand people are seriously injured. If workers had the right to question safety standards and to take action if they thought that those standards were being prejudiced, many of those fatalities would have been avoided.

Let me give an example. Scotch derrick cranes have been used extensively in quarries. They have fixed jibs. The Health and Safety Executive sent round a note saying that, if the pull holding the drum was made of cast iron, it should be replaced by a steel pull, because cast iron breaks. At Hungergantick quarry, the pulls were not replaced as had been recommended. The inspector from an insurance company could not tell the difference between steel and cast iron. One fateful morning, two workers got into the bucket and were lowered halfway down a quarry face. The pull broke, they plunged to the bottom and both were killed. Perhaps the workers would not have known about the difference between steel and cast iron, but they probably would.

The crane was not well maintained. In works operations, people are always pressing maintenance men to do odd jobs and get things working. If the workers had had the right outlined in the new clauses, it is likely that that Scotch derrick crane would have been properly maintained, according to the requirement that the HSE had circulated to employers. Accidents of that sort could be avoided. We should realise that people who operate cranes or other dangerous machinery and who are lowered

Column 1066

halfway down a quarry face or into the bowels of a mine in the course of their duties will have safety at the forefront of their minds, because they are the people who will be imperilled most if there are hazards at work.

The Government are obsessed with trade unions, and the Bill contains many provisions dealing with balloting. But every year, bar exceptional years, we lose more working days as a result of industrial injury than from strike action. That being so, why do not the Government do something about the daily toll taken on life and limb and reduce the number of days lost through industrial injury? I should like to draw the House's attention to some peculiarities and to emphasise the fact that new clauses 7 and 8 might do something to hurry up the production of clearer standards. For many years, there have been discrepancies between the lifting of heavy weights regulations in the wool textile industry and in agriculture. For agricultural workers, the limit is 175 lb but for textile workers it is only 120 lb. That is absurd. Agricultural workers cannot necessarily lift heavier weights than textile workers, but that is the implication that the regulations carry. Other workers have to lift more reasonable weights.

In 1976, the then chairman of the Health and Safety Commission assured me that the commission would be producing guidance on manual handling. That guidance is still awaited. If workers who daily have to lift heavy castings off a production line had the power to question safety standards and seek the assistance of health and safety inspectors, we might get some sense out of the arrangements and improve the regulations--and there are not many-- that have been crying out for reform for many years.

I should like to give the Minister some figures. In the nine months commencing 1 April in the year 1986-87, almost 30,000 people were off work for three or more days because of back injuries. For the same period in 1987-88, the figure was 30,002 and in 1988-89 it was 29, 783. If we take an average full year, the figure for 1979 was 44,000 ; for 1980 it was 37,000 ; for 1981 it was 74,000 ; and for 1982 it was 66,000. I stress that I am talking about thousands of people being affected by serious injury.

If we are serious about health and safety at work, we should give people the right to plead in an industrial tribunal that the reason for their course of action was the lack of decent health and safety standards. However, I would go further than that. I would give people the right to say, "We believe that these health and safety standards are not safe and we should like to call in a health and safety inspector to ascertain whether or not they are safe." Most decent employers would endorse that because most decent employers want proper standards of health and safety at work because they know that poor standards lead to all sorts of problems such as bad industrial relations and insurance companies wanting information when claims are made. It is a nightmare when serious industrial injuries occur. Therefore, I urge the Minister seriously to consider the new clauses and, even if he cannot accept them now, to have a word with his colleagues to ensure that amendments to their effect are tabled in another place.

Mr. Nellist : Unusual though this may seem, I fully agree with the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), not only that this is an odious Bill, but that clause 7, which the

Column 1067

Opposition amendments and new clauses seek to amend, is probably the worst aspect. That is why, during this Report stage, I am restricting my comments to this matter although I am no stranger to the Committee stages of the Employment Acts that the House has considered in past years.

The Bill is anti-working-class and anti-trade-union. It is designed to restrict the ability of trade unions to do the job that they were set up to do, which is to defend the rights and working conditions of their members and, through them, of their members' families. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that the new clauses represent the minimum. It was wrong of the Minister to try to dismiss them as unworthy of consideration. I repeat that they represent the minimum that the House should accept on this matter.

I should have preferred the House to debate stronger moves tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South seemed about to suggest that workers should have a legal right to stop unsafe jobs without having to worry about whether they were taking unofficial or official action and about whether they could or could not use an industrial tribunal. I believe that the legal right to stop an unsafe or dangerous job should be enshrined in our legislation but, unfortunately, that is not the road down which we are travelling. I also wish that we were talking about the mandatory use of prison sentences for employers or directors who are found to have been grossly negligent after a death or serious injury has occurred. I raised those points with the Prime Minister last Thursday but characteristically, she ignored them. As a result, 40 of my hon. Friends and I have tabled our points in early-day motion 969. I rise to speak on this group of amendments and new clauses especially because of the renewed interest in health and safety in recent days following the tragic death 10 days ago of Billy Cartman at the channel tunnel site. That death and that site encapsulate much of what is wrong with this country's health and safety legislation, especially in relation to construction sites. It is not only I who think that--the Health and Safety Executive has estimated that working on the channel tunnel is three times more dangerous even than working on a building site, and building sites are bad enough.

The House and working people outside the House rightly get angry when a Piper Alpha, a Zeebrugge or a King's Cross occurs. We rightly feel anger about the tragic and useless waste of life in those major incidents and accidents. Yet the same number of people--about 160--are killed every year in the construction industry, but because the loss of life is diffuse, spread over the year and not concentrated in one incident, if does not attract the same attention.

Therefore, I make no apology for speaking in these terms. It is not as though I have previously been accused of shroud-waving in the House. That is why I say that perhaps the only good that can come from useless and tragic accidents, such as the recent accident at the channel tunnel site, is that the minds of the people who should be in a position to do something about that--the legislators in this place--are concentrated wonderfully, albeit briefly.

Column 1068

7.15 pm

There have already been six deaths on our side of the channel tunnel and three on the other side. As I said last Thursday, that is almost a man per mile. Like others outside the House, especially those who have to work on the channel tunnel, I believe that the workers there are being asked to work far too fast and far too hard because of the escalating cost of the project. The contractors have received warnings in the past, but it took that sixth death before the Secretary of State for Employment called in the senior management of Transmanche Link.

I tabled a written question a few days ago about the outcome of that meeting with Jack Lemley, the chief executive of TML. The Minister on the Treasury Bench now, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), answered on behalf of the Secretary of State that Jack Lemley had assured the Secretary of State

"that the highest priority would be given to ensuring the health and safety of workers employed on the construction of the channel tunnel".

That answer does not sit easy with other reports. I could quote interviews reported in Militant with channel tunnel workers who do not wish to be named, but instead I will quote from a newspaper which is such that, I hope, even Conservative Members will not accuse me of choosing partial sources of information. I refer to The Independent of Wednesday 9 May. The workers interviewed by that newspaper refused to give their names precisely because of the clauses that we are debating and the fear that they might be dismissed for raising such points. The Independent reported workers as saying :

" It's push, push, push all the time.'

Staff allege that : locomotives used in construction were regularly derailed ; fires underground often went unreported ; visibility in many areas was dangerously low ; carbon dioxide fumes often rose above safe levels ; injured men, including workers with broken legs, were left untreated at the tunnel face until the shift ended and workers who complained about lack of safety were threatened with disciplinary action or demoted to lower-paid work.

One locomotive driver who refused to drive over a section of track which he felt would derail his train was sent out of the marine tunnel south and restricted to working in the service tunnel. You're not allowed to complain. If you complain, you're out. It's like being in a military camp, you do what you're told,' he said."

That is the sort of atmosphere that has been engendered in some construction projects, especially in the south-east where, because of the pressure of escalating costs and profit margins being ever tighter, the work is push, push, push. That is the atmosphere that the new clauses seek to address. They seek to give workers a safety net so that they can escape the sword of Damocles hanging about them and the fear that they can be dismissed for having taken what can be described as "unofficial action" if they complain about health and safety matters.

Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, I have spoken to people who have campaigned both at the channel tunnel and elsewhere, such as in my own region of the midlands, and know workers who are afraid to put their heads above the parapet. One reason is that there are people and firms in the construction industry who are heavily involved in and are financing bodies such as the Economic League, which keep lists of workers who complain. Then, when they are dismissed--usually on the pretext of being late for work or for some other reason unconnected with health and safety matters-- they are unable to get another job.

Column 1069

I shall limit my remarks because other hon. Members wish to speak and other issues need to be raised before we complete our consideration of the Bill today. It is no good the Minister saying that there are mechanisms such as fines to deal with breaches of health and safety rules. The five TML companies have been fined a maximum of £10,000 each for one death which occurred last February and were previously each fined £1,700. That does not concentrate the minds of directors of companies which are making millions of pounds of profit, but a prison sentence of between six and 24 months, if not longer, would certainly do so. The prospect of a prison sentence at the end of their tunnel if gross negligence was proved might lead directors to take their jobs more seriously and concentrate their minds on health and safety matters.

The Minister and other Conservative Members have said that the aim of their provisions is to limit unofficial action. I warn the Minister that such is the mood among many construction and other workers in dangerous jobs that I can foresee a time--it may well be this year--when there will be a one-day strike about health and safety issues on projects such as the channel tunnel. It may well be an unofficial strike--I do not think that workers will worry about that if so many of them take part, and they will certainly have the widespread support of other workers in other trade unions around the country.

The Minister has the chance today to prevent such things from happening. He should accept the minimal demands of my hon. Friends and our new clauses. If he does not, that will be on his conscience. He will know that he could have done something today to prevent the loss of life and limb and to avert the need for action, official or unofficial, in protest at the carnage occurring in industry today.

Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd) : I wished to make many points in the debate tonight, but I shall not make them all because there are restrictions on time, which I understand.

I wish to take up the Minister on what I consider to be some bland statements that he made about the way in which industrial law as it stands will enable people to take cases to industrial tribunals. Like many people- -on both sides of the House, I am sure--I come from industry. I know that the nuances, subtleties and interpretations of which he spoke earlier are so much hogwash. The day-to-day basis of most people's experience in industry is different. In my experience, when people try to defend themselves before industrial tribunals, the charge on which they have been dismssed from work is never a refusal to do a job because it is dangerous. The major charge is always different. The full force of the empoloyers' argument is always spent on undermining the employee's case that he or she did not wish to go into a dangerous place.

Health and safety has dogged industrial relations ever since industrial relations began. In industry we are often working on the frontiers of technology. Changes may occur which simply cannot be legislated for in a general way as the Bill attempts to do. I remember when roof bolting was introduced into pits. Men would say, "Those roof bolts are not safe." The employer believed that they were safe and time and again they would argue that experience in America showed that roof bolting was perfectly safe. I have no doubt that in many geological circumstances that is true. But to men venturing into dangerous areas of mines who were used to working under

Column 1070

steel arches the sight of a coal face or area of a mine supported only by roof bolting militated against everything that they understood about mining safety.

When men refused to go into such areas, they were threatened with dismissal. That happened on many occasions. I know for a fact that that was used after the miners' strike as a means of getting rid of undesirable teams, as they were considered by management, in an era of industrial relations when fear stalked many pits and there was no sense of self- confidence about industrial relations.

The other extreme is areas where the dangers do not seem great, such as a large office where there may be people using computer visual display units. We are only now beginning to understand the effect on health and safety of working on VDUs. If people walk out of an office saying that they do not believe that their work is safe in the long term, who is to rule in favour of one party or another? Under the Bill it would constitute an unofficial action, a walk out, rag out, call it what one will.

Who is to say to workers in the nuclear industry, after the findings of the Gardiner report are published, that they must go into an area about which they harbour great fears even though they worked there previously? At the innovative edge of technology there will be many problems that the Bill does not address. There is no room for ambiguity or vague promises of interpretation or subtleties. Health and safety provision must be included in a way that people can understand. It must be simple enough for both employers and employees to understand. Employees must have confidence in the legislation. If not, the trade unions will lose another function--the policing of their own work forces. There will be a degree of anarchy in industry which neither employers nor trade unions want. I fear that the Government do not understand that point. We shall end up with worse industrial relations and health and safety than we have now.

Mr. Eggar : We have had a useful debate and I shall try to respond briefly to as many as possible of the points that have been raised. I fully understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). We cannot take employees' health and safety seriously enough. As I said in my opening remarks, that is common ground on both sides of the House. I certainly share my hon. Friend's wish that trade unions should do all that they can to resolve industrial disputes and get their members back to work. Trade unions should always have that objective in mind.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that employers should seek advice from the Health and Safety Executive whenever it may be helpful. In our view, his amendments would not achieve those common objectives, but we are prepared to consider whether the proposed words for the union's repudiation statement are the best and most apt in all circumstances. I know that that has been a matter of concern to him both on Second Reading and in Committee, and I assure him that we shall not close our minds on that issue.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) postulated an example of an industrial dispute. I am somewhat wary of following up such examples, because each case must be decided by an industrial tribunal. He postulated an example of a long-term health and safety worry, as did the hon. Member for Pontypridd

Column 1071

(Dr. Howells). If employees are worried about either imminent or long-term health and safety issues, they are always free to call in an inspector. As I said earlier, that can be done on a confidential basis if that is appropriate.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has had a long-running interest in health and safety regulations with regard to manual handling. We hope that all European Community member states will shortly agree unanimously a directive on manual handling. He will be interested to know that much of that directive is based on a consultative document issued by the Health and Safety Commission. The hon. Members for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) slightly misconstrued what we have said. We have never said that employees who take unofficial industrial action are protected against selective dismissal. The issue is whether there is any industrial action at all. If not--and we say that there is no industrial action where employees stop work because of fears for their safety--those dismissed have the right to complain of unfair dismissal. Their position will be the same as before the Bill. In response to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), let me say that section 36 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 provides for industrial managers and directors to be prosecuted for breaches of health and safety. Indeed, in certain circumstances, that Act allows for imprisonment. It is not correct to say that that section has never been applied. A company director was successfully prosecuted for manslaughter following the death of an employee in May 1988. He received a suspended prison term of two years.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, suggested that it might be appropriate to explore the root of an avoidance of doubt provision. We considered that in some detail, but we came to the conclusion that the present position was preferable. It is not something that we have simply overlooked. We have explored that possibility.

The hon. Members for Stretford and for Coventry, South-East asked about the situation on the channel tunnel. We are unaware of any industrial action about health and safety issues on the channel tunnel site. Although there is widespread anxiety about health and safety on the channel tunnel site, the precise area covered by the Bill has not arisen in that context. Rather than choosing his newspaper, Militant, the hon. Member for Coventry, South- East quoted from The Independent. I shall quote from The Independent on Sunday of 13 May, which quoted a senior TGWU shop steward as saying :

"The Channel tunnel site is well disciplined with an excellent industrial relations team and there is no evidence of production being put before safety."

Mr. Nellist : Will the Minister give way?

7.30 pm

Mr. Eggar : I will not give way. I gave way earlier to the hon. Gentleman.

We have had a useful debate on what is essentially a technical matter. The Government are every bit as committed to maintaining and improving health and safety at work as the Opposition. We are convinced that clause 7 does nothing to undermine the excellent health

Column 1072

and safety record that the country has achieved as a result of the bipartisan policy following the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.

Mr. Tony Lloyd : Although this may be a technical issue for the Government, it is a matter of life and death for the people whom my hon. Friends and I and, indeed, Tory Members represent.

Whereas the Minister uses legalistic sophistry to argue whether action is industrial action, we are anxious that people should have a legitimate opportunity to withdraw their labour and protest in that form if their lives are threatened, for example, on the channel tunnel site. If the Minister accepts that they will be prevented from doing so by the provisions of the Bill, he fails to understand how dangerous working conditions are in the tunnel.

The Minister believes that there is something to be undermined in our wonderful health and safety structures. I remind him that his Government are underfunding the Health and Safety Executive to the extent that it is having to make cuts. They have consistently run down the executive so that it is unable to do the job that Parliament asks of it.

Mr. Eggar : That is a disgraceful comment.

Mr. Lloyd : I invite the Minister to have a debate on health and safety at any time in the House. We shall be delighted to put the Government on the spot.

Mr. Eggar rose --

Mr. Lloyd : The Minister will understand why I do not give way. He has had his say.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) was right in his comment about the construction industry. It has a terrible record. If the Minister believes that the position is satisfactory, and if his only defence is that one employer was given a suspended prison sentence, putting that forward as evidence that the law is applied, he does not understand that people are being seriously injured and killed at work. We will do everything that we can to prevent that.

As my hon. Friends have pointed out, we have tabled minimal new clauses and amendments to give the narrowest of protections to people at work. The fact that the Government are not prepared to accept even those minimal demands shows that they do not care about health and safety. For that reason, we shall vote for the new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided : Ayes 139, Noes 176.

Division No. 214] [7.33 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Allen, Graham

Anderson, Donald

Armstrong, Hilary

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Battle, John

Beckett, Margaret

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bermingham, Gerald

Bidwell, Sydney

Blair, Tony

Boateng, Paul

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Buchan, Norman

Buckley, George J.

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clay, Bob

Cohen, Harry

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Next Section

Home Page