House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 May 1990

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : I find myself in difficulty because I disagree profoundly with the two Front-Bench spokesmen. I want to tell the House why. I find the Minister's position--standing up, it seems, for Britain's interests against the proposals of the social charter--not very credible, coming, as it does, from a a party that took us into the Community, and into the single market,

Column 133

without consulting the electorate. One element that has not been discussed by any hon. Member is the impact of all this on the elector's role, which is what concerns me.

I can understand the Cabinet's nightmare. Cabinet Ministers think that the social charter is a reincarnation of Frank Cousins and the Ministry of Technology, Barbara Castle and the Department of Employment and Productivity and George Brown and the Department of Economic Affairs put together, suddenly looming at them in the form of that radical Socialist, Jacques Delors, and they are fending it off. On the other hand, what they want to do--it is the precondition of their acceptance of entry into the ERM--is to hand this country over to market forces. They want everything to be determined by market forces, which are not accountable to the electorate either. I presume that when the Minister said that we had to consider competition with other countries, he was thinking that if the Pacific rim countries can challenge us with cheaper goods because they pay lower wages, we shall have to bring our wages down to that level to survive. I do not agree with that. It is profoundly wrong. I am afraid, however, that I did not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) either. He spoke for a party which, I gather from press reports, is on the point of endorsing the social charter--subject to our discussions on Wednesday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I will be present to put a contrary view. But if one of us is in the lavatory, the other will have no seconder. We will have to keep together throughout the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford ignored the fact that, once a law or directive is agreed in Brussels by one Government, it is irreversible. Our electorate should be told the truth : whoever they vote for in the next general election, our Government will not be able to change that Brussels legislation.

Although I am not a labour law historian, I know that the Taff Vale judgment penalised the railwaymen in 1906. That legislation was repealed by the Liberals. After the general strike, the Conservatives introduced the trades disputes legislation and that was repealed by a Labour Government. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) introduced the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and the Labour Government repealed it.

However, I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford that legislation from Brussels cannot be repealed. It is open to either a Labour Government or a Conservative Government to agree to directives at a Council of Ministers that tie any other Government for ever because Community legislation cannot be reversed. Admittedly it may be easier to influence that legislation with majority voting than with the unanimity rule. Under the latter, if one country stands out, a directive cannot be introduced. However, that works the other way round--it cannot be repealed without everyone agreeing. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred to Franco-German interests in high wages. Those countries would be unlikely to repeal something that might assist employment in a place like Manchester.

We should be considering a range of issues. The provisions in the social charter contain many things that look attractive on paper. However, if they were implemented at the Brussels level, even with the principle of subsidiarity, masses of legislation would go through this House without our debating it.

Perhaps the Minister has discovered something about his civil servants that my civil servants were quick to

Column 134

discover. They discovered that they did not have to bother with a Bill in the Queen's Speech when the legislation could be slipped in through Brussels. I remember a sensible proposal to standardise gas pipelines. Normally, such legislation would appear in a Bill. The Minister knows what it is like : Ministers queue up at the Queen's Speech committee or the legislation committee or whatever it is called under this Government and there is great pressure. Civil servants can bypass that process. They say, "Don't bother, Minister. We will have a word with COREPER and get it back as a directive. You just have to go to Brussels and agree to the proposal." The whole parliamentary process is then bypassed. That is the danger. Democracy always hangs on a thread of public confidence. If I have to go to Chesterfield during the next general election and tell people that no matter who they vote for, we cannot deal with any matter that has been predetermined by previous Governments, are they going to bother to vote? If they vote thinking that we can change such legislation and we cannot, what will they say?

I loathe the word subsidiarity. However, subsidiarity should mean that everything should be considered at the lowest level, that is by the electors. It is not Parliament, but Ministers of any Goverment taking away the electors' powers. I was president of the Energy Council of Ministers during our presidency. I exercised the royal prerogative. In those circumstances, Ministers do not care about the House of Commons. We sit in solemn impotence. Even if few modifications were required, if Conservative or Labour Ministers had carried through such legislation at the Community level the House would be legally and constitutionally impotent.

The House must consider that problem. I have always believed that we are servants of the electorate and that sovereignty belongs to the people. They lend it to us in five-year terms. In the end, as stewards, we have to hand it back. We cannot tell them at the end that we gave it away to Jacques Delors. They would regard that as a breach of the Rousseau social contract. We are only the custodians of that power ; we are not in a position in law, morality or constitutional practice to hand it to anybody else.

Mr. Cash : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn : I do not wish to detain the House because other hon. Members wish to speak, but this point really must be made. In a strange way, it unites hon. Members who differ fundamentally about how power should be exercised by the House. I disagree strongly. I am not a nationalist. I am not in favour of whipping up feeling against the Franco-German axis-- that would be a great mistake. We live in a world in which we must harmonise by consent. I do not share any of the political objectives of the hon. Member for Stafford, but perhaps I share with him the determination that the right to make that decision is taken by electors, not by Ministers in the name of the Crown in pursuit of objectives that have never been fully disclosed to the British people.

I have five questions that I ask people who have power, and I recommend them to the House. If I see someone who is powerful, be it a traffic warden, Rupert Murdoch, the head of a trade union or a Member of Parliament, I ask myself these five questions : "What power have you got? Where did you get it? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? How can we get rid of

Column 135

you?" That last question is crucial. We cannot get rid of Jacques Delors ; we cannot get rid of the Commission. We can get rid of a Government ; but we cannot get rid of European legislation that a Government have entrenched during their period in office--be they a Labour Government with the Tories coming or the other way around. I know that the House is empty, that it is late at night and that we are not having a vote. We have all the conditions for public neglect. The Galleries are not as full as hon. Members would like. However, the issue is fundamental. If we get it wrong we shall destroy parliamentary democracy in Britain. It is a time bomb ticking away under us. Perhaps the fuse is still long. When the British people discover that, whomever they vote for, they cannot change the laws under which the Government have governed, this House will collapse as a valid part of a democratic constitution. That is the argument that we should be having. When we have established it in the democratic way, we can resume the argument about how we should recommend the people to use the power that remains in their hands. 11.26 pm

Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West) : It is probably worth remembering that the proposals in the draft charter go way beyond anything that is contained in the treaty of Rome or the Single European Act and that what is being proposed is totally novel and would extend the jurisdiction of the Community into matters that we never previously approved in this House or elsewhere in the Community. That may be good and there may be things in the charter that all of us would want. My hon. Friend the Minister of State stated that many things would be welcome. Equally, he said, and I agree, that there are other matters that would be profoundly unwelcome.

It was very helpful when the French presidency responded by saying that it felt that, in considering this matter further, there was a need to give greater consideration to the principle of subsidiarity. That is an important principle and I support it because, if the Community is to go forward harmoniously, it is important for us to decide which matters are important to be decided centrally as a group and which should be the preserve of national Parliaments. If we follow the principle of subsidiarity in doing those things locally which can best be done locally, we are not likely to have the conflicts that some hon. Members are worried may occur in the Community. We need to know what is acceptable and what is not. What is clearly acceptable is health and safety at work. The British Government have quite a lot to teach other member countries. Our record on safety at work is very much better than those of most other Community Governments. It would therefore be to the benefit of all of us if those areas could be extended.

Equally, the mutual recognition of qualifications, which assists people to move across frontiers and to work in other Community countries, seems desirable. Once people move to other countries, it is, of course, important that they understand that they will be protected by health and safety at work measures which, before they go, they know will give them the same protection as that to which

Column 136

they are entitled at home. The big difference is that, although a person who is going to work abroad will probably find out how many hours he must work, his pay and the general conditions of his employment before he goes, he may not understand the health and safety at work conditions because they may vary widely between Community countries.

Health and safety provisions are therefore both sensible and desirable. What is not sensible and desirable is to build on that a whole series of corporate interventionist measures, such as are beloved of the Labour party and which used to be so beloved of many other Socialists in the European Community, although they seem to be less fashionable now in some quarters. Understandably, they are beloved of Madam Papandreou, the Commissioner. One can see that they fall within her general social philosophy. However, those measures seem to me to be profoundly damaging, not just to the British economy, but to the economies of many--in fact, most of the other European Community countries.

Minimum wages are a good example and I entirely agree with what my hon. Friends have said about that matter. Fixed working hours are another example. They may or may not be attractive. Minimum rest periods could well be attractive to certain Members of this honourable House. One can well understand that the prospect of not having to sit all night could command considerable support in the Chamber. The notion of a statutory role for trade unions might not get such unanimous support on both sides of the Chamber--nor, I imagine, would the statutory compensation and worker participation proposals, with their shades of Vredeling. We thought that we had won the battle over Mr. Vredeling and his proposals, but no, back they come via Madam Papandreou. It is the same all over again. I am concerned that the Commission is intent on bulldozing these matters through in an entirely unsatisfactory way. Perhaps the most worrying thing is that we do not yet know what articles of the charter it intends to use. We might be less worried if we were absolutely certain that there would have to be unanimity in the Council on all these matters, but I understand--perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm this--that there is a suggestion that Madam Papandreou believes that many of these measures can be got through under the guise of health and safety measures. That would mean qualified majority voting on issues that go way beyond what most of us believe the treaties comprise.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will also confirm my understanding that the Commission has already received legal advice that its proposals are outside the law and contrary to existing treaties but that, notwithstanding that, it still intends to go forward on that basis, forcing us and anybody who disagrees to go to the European Court. If that is true, it is an extremely worrying development and is yet another example of Commission empire- building, against which all of us must be permanently on our guard.

11.33 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : When I entered the Chamber this evening, it was my intention to listen, so my contribution will be short. Nevertheless, I hope that it will provide more perspectives on the significance and importance of the document that we are considering. Of

Column 137

course, it is a communication and individual items and proposals will appear later. However, the total shape must be recognised for what it is.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) advanced some constitutional issues on which I shall not comment, except to say that I have not heard them negatived anywhere. I should be interested to know whether any member of any party--certainly any member of the current Parliament--would give a negative response to his main thesis.

I should like first to comment on a subject on which the Select Committee on European Legislation has also commented, albeit indirectly : subsidiarity. Both the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and the Minister referred to it tonight. According to evidence given to the Committee by its legal adviser, Mr. Speaker's counsel, subsidiarity is not a hard rock but an area of shifting sands, and a dialogue between the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and the Minister--which has only just been

published--demonstrates that.

The evidence that I gave, on behalf of that Committee, to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs about the operation of the Single European Act contains a lengthy memorandum about subsidiarity submitted by Mr. Speaker's counsel. I commend it to the Minister, and to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West : they will find if they read it that the only certainty about subsidiarity is that it is uncertain.

The issue arises in relation to conditions of work, a subject that forms part of the social charter. I am sorry that no hon. Member has mentioned an important point that was made by the Select Committee on European Legislation in HC11, Volume 7 :

"The Committee recalls that its Legal Adviser's note, annexed to its Twenty -sixth Report of Session 2 1988-89 gave fair warning that the proposed role of the Community in this sector would probably extend well beyond the subject area delineated by the Government. It also notes that the Select Committee on the European Communities of the House of Lords has made a similar assessment."

In other words, the treaty--and the use likely to be made of that factor by the Commission and the Council--will go some distance. If the principle of subsidiarity in that respect were prayed in aid, I have no doubt that the matter would go to the court--the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West mentioned this--and that the powers of the Commission to propose, and of the Council to legislate, would be decided there. That would be the final word--which ties up with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has been telling us.

The report also states :

"Indeed, the Government's explanatory memorandum goes some way to recognise this likelihood in its admission that taken together the proposals in the action programme could have a major impact on United Kingdom Law. Significant changes in employment and social security law could be required' "--

I emphasise the word "required"--

"probably by means of primary legislation'."

In other words, there would be a proposal to change the law relating to social security in regard to employment, and we would be forced by our treaty obligation to pass the necessary primary legislation.

It must be specified who will make the requirement, and on whose authority. Under the treaty, there is no single article under which qualified majority voting would give such a requirement--although the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West has mentioned what Mrs.

Column 138

Papandreou is reckoned to be thinking. That refers to article 118A, which nevertheless has quite a few holes in it with regard to implemenation.

Article 100, which requires unanimity, can be used for any matter that contributes to the completion of the Common Market for which the powers are not already in the treaty. Article 235 again requires unanimity and can be used for any purpose not contained in the treaty. There may be some controversy over article 100A, which can be used for legislation to create the single market in 1992. At present it excludes matters relating to conditions of employment. At first sight, therefore, unanimity on most of those matters is maintained. That is the position now, but discussions are going on which will culminate in intergovernmental conferences towards the end of the year and some revisions of the treaty. What national Governments will say about such revisions, which fortunately must be unanimous, remains to be seen. There is a decent argument for saying that, as there is to be a single market, the requirement for a single set of laws on industrial relations and collective bargaining should be put in place by the same method. Some may hold to that and others not, but it appears to be a possibility.

Almost at the opposite end of the scale to those big issues are public holidays. Will holidays literally meaning holy days, and Sunday observance, legislation on which has proved highly contentious in the House, come within the ambit of such legislation? I do not know the answer, but I put it forward as one of the intriguing possibilities, with which one may agree or disagree, which one day may confront us as part of the package labelled the social dimension.

11.42 pm

Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) : Many of the important points have been made, but I wish to endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Friends have said about health and safety proposals which should be dealt with on a pan-EEC basis. There are many reasons for that, but the one not yet given is competition. It is generally recognised that health and safety cost money and reduce output on many types of equipment because of working practices. Unless such regulations are common throughout the Community, competition will not be on an equal footing.

I emphasise the importance of enforcement and monitoring, particularly of health and safety measures, although they apply to many of the other proposals. We have a mix of countries with the Community, many of which have a dubious reputation on abiding by the regulations and directives issued by the Commission and approved by the various Councils of Ministers. It is commonly accepted that the French will happily agree to whatever seems politically right at the time, but subsequently may be lax on enforcement. When it comes to the Italians, anything to do with the work force is impossible to enforce because of the massive black economy, which is wholly outwith regulations. We must ensure that what is approved as a result of the action plan and the social charter leads to effective enforcement and monitoring throughout the Community, otherwise everything will be nothing less than a joke.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and the hon. Member for Newham, South

Column 139

(Mr. Spearing) said that we should question which articles of the treaty of Rome should be used. I remind those hon. Gentlemen of the occasion when Madam Papandreou attended a meeting of the Select Committee on Employment, of which I was then a member. She made it abundantly clear that she intended to use article 118A, the health and safety provision, as the means to force through every aspect of the social charter in the spurious belief that one could construe anything to do with work as being to do with effective health and safety. That is wrong and I urge the Minister to make it clear that we will resist that abuse of the treaty of Rome by the Commission. I do not say that out of some innate opposition to the treaty or to the Community but because I care about the future of the Community. I should hate to see it and its institutions brought into disrepute by such blatant abuse on the part of the Commission.

The Minister has already pointed out the proposal relating to atypical forms of employment, not just part-time employment but anything other than full-time, open-ended contracts. What has happened to individual choice and responsibility? There are also proposals for a Community instrument relating to public works contracts and the introduction of a labour clause. The House debated the need for such a thing in Britain, but we have long since learnt our lesson about that. There is also a proposal for a Community instrument on consultation with industry--the old chestnut about industrial relations and workers on the board. It cannot be right for the Community to dictate the lines of such policies ; it is right for business to make those decisions.

Will the proposals in the action plan achieve that which they are intended to achieve? Will they lead to more jobs and better pay and conditions for the work force? In many cases the answer will be no. Too much regulation effectively destroys competition. The single market is all about competition, but there is a direct conflict between that and the action plan. If we want the competition achieved by the single market, we cannot destroy the competitive side of the labour market with over-regulation.

A month ago I was fortunate enough to be in New Zealand where the Labour Government have completely deregulated industry. They have removed subsidies and moved out of the regulation business. They have not achieved the wonderful results enjoyed in the United Kingdom because they have not touched the labour market. It is still heavily regulated--even more so than our own under the previous Labour Government. The fundamental lesson that we must all learn is that too much regulation achieves negative results.

When will those who believe in socialist policies recognise that there is an inverse correlation between security and opportunity? The more one increases security, the more one damages opportunity. That is the case in housing and in the labour market but the Labour party fails to recognise that.

My hon. Friend the Minister has made a number of important points and it is clear that he understands the depth of feeling in the House about some of the proposals. I urge him to make absolutely sure that the benefits which

Column 140

will accrue to British industry from the single market are not destroyed by the anti-competitive nature of some of the proposals. 11.49 pm

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : It is an outrage to our democracy that we are debating 47 important measures at this time of night, with a handful of Members, when we clearly have no control over what happens. We are debating important labour regulations, including the introduction of the labour contract on public works and even matters such as the recommendation of the code of good conduct and the protection of pregnancy and maternity.

Despite all this, although no one, apart from those on the Labour Front Bench, have had a good word to say about what is happening, I think that the Minister's speech tonight was one of the most important that we have heard for a long time. He clearly said that, in his and the Government's view, many of the measures will hamper job creation, hinder competition, damage competitiveness in world markets and put at risk all the benefits of the single market. The Government have said clearly that what is proposed in a good number of measures is damaging and dangerous.

The Government must ask, as they should have done a long time ago, what on earth they can do about it. The Goverment have said that we can challenge the vires. If article 100A or 118A is suggested when they should not be used, we must complain about it. But how does one complain? The Minister must be aware that the first time a directive comes before the Council, unless everyone disagrees, nothing can be done about it.

The Minister said that the Government were also planning to go to the European Court. He must be aware that in almost every instance where the powers of the Community's institutions have come up before the court, the court has found in their favour. Therefore, as the Government are now openly admitting--I was delighted at the Minister's splendid speech--what is proposed is damaging and could undermine the Conservative Government's policies and democracy. We must make up our minds soon about what to do. If the powers of selecting the treaty base are being abused, and the measures are damaging, what on earth do we do?

I believe that going to the court is a waste of time, and the Government know that. The idea of challenging the vires is pointless, and the Govenment know that. We shall have to take more seriously the idea of a twin-track Europe, and this is where we must start. 11.53 pm

Mr. Eggar : We have had an excellent debate, as these late night, one-and-a-half hour EC debates so often are. We have covered a broad canvas, and I apologise to hon. Members because I probably will not be able to deal with the issues in the depth that they deserve. I am sure that we shall return to the so-called dimension and its implementation often in the future.

There are 40 to 50 directives or regulations that I suspect we shall consider during the next two years. Many of the issues will come up for consideration again. I hope that, before we consider them again, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will do his work better. The directive on collective redundancies was passed by the Commission,

Column 141

and has been implemented by the House. It applies as much in this country as it does in others in the Community. But we can return to that on future occasions.

I stress again to the House that the key priority for us when we come to consider the various measures put forward under the so-called social dimension will be the ability or otherwise of those measures to add to job creation in the Community. That is not the view of just the United Kingdom Government. No less a person than the President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, made exactly the same point in a speech to the European Parliament this January when he said : "It is no longer possible to believe that anything can be achieved on the social front without action on the economic front." We have heard a great deal this evening from the hon. Member for Stretford about his party's new-found enthusiasm for the European Community. That was challenged by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and, as usual, from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Let us be quite clear about what the Labour party spokesmen are saying. They have not lost their enthusiasm for unnecessary regulation, bureaucracy and red tape ; they have simply said that, as they cannot get it by Whitehall, they want it imposed by Brussels.

The Opposition consistently say that they believe that the ordinary British employer and employee do not know how to conduct social matters. The only people, they say, who know how to conduct them are the bureaucrats in Brussels or Whitehall. If the hon. Member for Stretford and his hon. Friends--apart from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield--get their way, the Labour party's new position on social policy will be to support qualified majority voting in the Community on all social issues.

I must ask the hon. Gentleman a few questions that flow from this new position. Do the Opposition want legally enforceable collective agreements, such as are the norm almost everywhere else in Europe? Do they want to deprive all civil servants, teachers and postal workers of the right to strike, as happens in Germany? Do they support and admire the Italian legislation that allows the police to force strikers to go back to work? Perhaps they are eager to import the requirement for a period of notice before a strike, as demanded by the law in Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and France. The fundamental question goes even further. The Labour party was founded, perfectly honourably, to represent the interests of the trade unions in the British Parliament. Is it now the party's position that in future all the major issues that are relevant to the working conditions of British employees should be decided in Brussels? That is implied in the Labour party's support for qualified majority voting--

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9978-89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 15th March 1990 relating to Commission action programme relating to the implementation of the Social Charter ; and endorses the Government's view that a key

Column 142

factor in ensuring that the achievement of the single market has a social dimension is to continue efforts to stimulate job creation and bring down unemployment.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

Plant Health and Marketing Standards

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5486/87, 5803/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 17th April 1989 and 7th March 1990, 4023/90 and 4024/90, relating to plant health and 4020/90, 4021/90 and 4022/90, relating to marketing of certain plants and plant propagating material ; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective measures against the spread of serious plant pests and diseases to the United Kingdom-- [Mr. Sackville.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

London Docklands

That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989, dated 7th June, 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.-- [Mr. Sackville.]

The House divided : Ayes 164, Noes 25.

Division No. 220] [11.57 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Ashby, David

Baldry, Tony

Batiste, Spencer

Bendall, Vivian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Boswell, Tim

Bowis, John

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Buck, Sir Antony

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

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Chope, Christopher

Colvin, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Couchman, James

Cran, James

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Devlin, Tim

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dunn, Bob

Durant, Tony

Eggar, Tim

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Fallon, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Fishburn, John Dudley

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Freeman, Roger

French, Douglas

Gale, Roger

Gardiner, George

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Gill, Christopher

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Goodlad, Alastair

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Hague, William

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hanley, Jeremy

Hannam, John

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Harris, David

Hawkins, Christopher

Hayes, Jerry

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Hayward, Robert

Hill, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Next Section

Home Page