| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mrs. Ewing : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley : He has written some half-thought-out ideas on the back of an envelope. We know that he is thinking of a possible review--
Mrs. Ewing : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady knows that, if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, she must resume her seat.
Mr. Hattersley : We recorded and noted that the right hon. Member for Henley promised a review and a re-examination. He then promised to switch some local government expenditure to national Government, without thinking about whether it would increase the tax bill.
Column 505
When I shadowed him at the Department of the Environment, his obsession was with switching national expenditure to local government. In the past month or two, he has changed his mind. At least the right hon. Gentleman has given us half-thought-out ideas on where he stands on the crucial domestic political issue. I hope that, in the next four or five days, we shall hear where the other contenders for high office stand on the issue. What does the Foreign Secretary think about the poll tax? If he were here, I would offer to give way to him so that he could reveal to an anxious nation how he would alter it.Mrs. Ewing : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way to me then?
Mr. Hattersley : No. The hon. Lady is not Foreign Secretary and nor is she likely to be, so I shall not give way.
Mrs. Ewing rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the hon. Lady to sit down.
Mr. Hattersley : I chose the poll tax as one of my examples because it epitomises all that is wrong with the Government. It takes from the poor and gives to the rich. It divides the nation. Its collection costs make it inefficient as well as callous. It has come to symbolise all that was worst in the past 11 years, and it will go on to typify all that is bad in the dying months of the Government. The same pattern appears time after time. In education, funds are diverted to and concentrated on the city technology colleges, the contracted-out schools and the independent schools, while the generality of education, on which most families rely, is neglected. The same applies to the health service. Tax concessions are given to elderly people who want to take up private medicine but in the general health service, on which most families rely, wards and hospitals are closed.
The same applies to policies affecting black and Asian Britons. We hear great protestations about the need to support the family and endorse family virtues, as long as those families are not black or Asian families who are divided and kept permanently apart. The philosophy of the past 11 years has divided the country. It has been the philosophy of the weakest to the wall, the devil take the hindmost and every man for himself. The country has grown tired of that philosophy and contemptuous of the people who advocate it. That is why whoever leads the Tory party at the next election will lead it to defeat. What the nation wants now is not conflict but co-operation. What the British people want now is not confrontation but concessions. They want a kinder, gentler and more understanding Government. They want the nation to work together. That is one thing that the Prime Minister has never been able to propose because she is incapable of understanding it.
My final word is this. At the beginning of the policy document which the Labour party put to the nation six months ago, we talked about an Administration who crushed dissent, were intolerant of criticism, bribed newspapers and bullied broadcasters and by every criterion were exactly the elective dictatorship against which Lord Hailsham warned us before he became the right hon. Lady's Lord Chancellor and a member of such an elective dictatorship. Belatedly, a few members of the
Column 506
Cabinet have realised the parliamentary tyranny for which the right hon. Lady was responsible. They have overturned her for that reason, and we shall overturn them for supporting her for so long. 9.29 pmThe Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : We reject this motion outright, not just because everyone on this side of the House has confidence in the policies which have produced the very many successes for this country of the past decade-- and will go on doing so--but because we wish to underline, as did my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken today, and to record our gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for her immense achievements during her outstanding 11 years of leadership.
During those 11 years, our economy has been transformed from being what was widely known as the sick man of Europe to one of substantial growth, prosperity, investment and underlying economic strength. It has been my right hon. Friend's unwavering consistency of approach and belief which has taken us away from the dark days of the late 1970s and away, too, from the constant emphasis on state intervention, subsidy and control, and has restored a spirit of intitiative, self-reliance and enterprise in this country.
As everyone recognises, my right hon. Friend has made a remarkable and powerfully positive contribution internationally, from the development of the European Community to the ending of the cold war and the rebirth of freedom and democracy in eastern Europe and elsewhere, and in many other ways. My right hon. Friend's world status and reputation are immediately obvious to anyone who travels beyond our shores. As we as colleagues have so often seen, in tackling all the many difficult issues which confront a Prime Minister on a day-to-day and even an hour-to-hour basis, my right hon. Friend has always shown courage, generosity, clear-sightedness and a great capacity to grasp and make decisions on the most complex issues, but above and through it all a clear vision of the way ahead for this country and its people, and of the values and principles that she most sought to advance.
Mr. Winnick : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor : I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me finish this passage, please.
This morning my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said of the Prime Minister :
"Your place in our country's history is already assured." There can be no doubt about that. Her place will be that of one of the great Prime Ministers. I should like to add that not only has she been a great Prime Minister but, as the House has seen again this afternoon, she is a great lady.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Healey : We are all impressed by the glowing encomium that the right hon. Gentleman is offering to the Prime Minister. If she really is such a paragon of political, moral and national virtue, why the hell has he ditched her?
Mr. MacGregor : I want to come back later-- [Laughter.] because-- [Laughter.]
Column 507
Mr. Speaker : Order. Mr. John MacGregor.Mr. MacGregor : I am coming to the right hon. Gentleman's point. I was only going to say that I wanted to return to the point that he made in his speech this afternoon, and I shall do so. We have invented for ourselves a complex electoral system which requires re-examination, at least for when we are in government. I do not wish to elaborate on that point now, but we must ask ourselves whether we are not setting the leader of our party a test in mid-term which is more severe than any Prime Minister should be subjected to. We need to address that point.
I know that the Prime Minister likes us to get down to business, so I will get down to the debate. However, I know that all Conservative Members--and, I suspect, many other Members--would want me to pay that tribute to my right hon. Friend and would support it wholeheartedly. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on making his maiden speech so soon. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said, it is always a daunting experience, but the hon. Gentleman overcame it calmly. His speech was a little contentious and he will therefore understand why I cannot agree with much of it. He will also understand why I take issue with him on the city technology college, which I am sure will be an important contribution to raising educational standards in Bradford's inner-city area and will also prove extremely popular with parents. I shall make just three comments on the opening speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He criticised the Government for not building and strengthening our economy--at a time when employment is at an all-time high, private sector investment has increased by 45 per cent. in the three years to 1989, capital investment is running at £30 billion this year and increasing next year and private sector investment on training amounts to more than £20 billion. The facts simply belie his criticism, but the right hon. Gentleman has never been interested in facts.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the so-called fundamental conflicts in our party about Britain's position in Europe, but the real conflict is in his own party, where there is even a conflict as to whether Britain should be a member of the Community. The right hon. Gentleman had the gall to argue that we do not have the policies to enable us to receive benefit from the Community. I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister renegotiated the repayment of nearly £10 billion to this country to put right the results of the deals that the Labour Government had done. That repayment is an obvious example of benefit to this country.
The two most entertaining and listened-to Opposition speeches today were made by right hon. Gentlemen who, if they will forgive my saying so, are both over the age of 70. That speaks volumes for the future of the Labour party.
Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) : How old is the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. MacGregor : A good deal younger.
As a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have already said, the conventional forces in Europe treaty signed on Monday and the CSCE final document signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday are
Column 508
eloquent witness to the success of the Government's conduct of foreign affairs. The prospects for peace and for human rights in Europe are now better than at any time for generations. For the first time, through the CFE treaty, there will be a balance of forces in Europe, and massive numbers of Soviet tanks, planes and artillery will be scrapped. The countries of NATO have joined with the Soviet Union and eastern Europe to make it clear that we no longer regard each other as adversaries.Anyone who reads the full text of the charter for a new Europe will find that it is not only an eloquent summary of the principles of a free and democratic society, but a notable acceptance of the benefits of free market economies and an outright rejection of socialist ones. That is a triumph, for this country and for our children, and the Government are proud to have played our part, under the courageous and clear-sighted leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong (Durham, North-West) : If foreign affairs are so important, why is not the Foreign Secretary or neither of the two other people seeking to lead the Government present in the Chamber to defend that Government?
Mr. MacGregor : I assure the hon. Lady that we shall all be defending the Government in the Lobby later. It is interesting to note how the triumph came about, first, because in the 1980s we and others in the west maintained strong defences and the nuclear deterrent. The Soviet Union realised that military domination was impossible. Secondly, the spectacular success of free enterprise economies in the west acted as a beacon for the oppressed peoples of eastern Europe, and persuaded the Soviet Union that it could not compete economically, still less dominate, on the basis of centralised, totalitarian planning. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend has made clear many times, that triumph was attained because of the courage and vision of President Gorbachev. Against the odds, the Soviet Union produced a leader to meet the moment. The country will remember, however, as do our friends and allies throughout the world, that it was our Government and our Prime Minister who first recognised that, in my right hon. Friend's memorable words, President Gorbachev was a man "with whom we can do business".
Fourthly, because of the united support of Governments and people in the west, in accordance with the Helsinki agreements, it was a triumph for all those in the Soviet Union and eastern European countries who stood up for basic human rights and freedoms long before it was safe, let alone acceptable, to do so.
We are today defending the record of the Government. We have stood consistently for strong defence, for the cause of freedom and for individual liberty. There is not a shred of justification for censure of the Government's record on defence and international affairs. The Labour party has welcomed the successful outcome of the CSCE summit. Even Opposition Members realised that they could do no other, but let us examine their record--
Ms. Short rose --
Mr. MacGregor : Let us examine the record of Labour Members on the policies that helped to make that possible. First, they consistently opposed our staunch and resolute stand on nuclear weapons. They were wrong. The response
Column 509
of the Leader of the Opposition to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) about the right hon. Gentleman's membership of CND had the merit of being short, but it showed how wrong he has been throughout on that matter.Sir Jim Spicer : Might it be possible at some point to place on record the names of those who spoke at the CND rally in Trafalgar square in October 1983, calling for no deployment of Polaris weapons and saying that if Polaris came it would be the end of peace?
Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. It is worth recalling that it was, in part, our determination to have cruise and Pershing missiles which enabled us to get to the point of the treaty this week.
Ms. Short rose --
Mr. MacGregor : I will not give way again. The hon. Member for Sparkbrook gave way about as many times as I have.
In their hearts, Opposition Members dislike, distrust and sometimes despise the free enterprise economy for which my hon. Friends and I stand. In that, too, they have been wrong. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that the hon. Member for Newham, North- West (Mr. Banks) is indicating that he cannot hear what the Minister is saying. That is largely because there is so much chatter going on. I appeal to the House to listen in silence.
Mr. MacGregor : Consider the criticisms of Opposition Members of our privatisation policies in that respect. The leaders of the emerging free market economies in eastern Europe think differently. Above all, privatisation is seen throughout the world as the symbol of the successful economic policy that the British Government have pursued. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we know the judgment of the rest of the world on our record.
Next--I believe this to be the most important point in that context--in the words of the Opposition defence spokesman, the Opposition condemned my right hon. Friend's proposals for a continuing NATO out-of-area role as "post-imperialist fantasy". That was just six weeks before Saddam Hussein invaded the Gulf. They were wrong again--blindly and dangerously wrong.
Ms. Short rose --
Mr. MacGregor : No, I will not give way again.
Ms. Short rose --
Mr. MacGregor : I give way for the last time.
Ms. Short : We understand that the Prime Minister's strengths are also her weaknesses. Her arrogance and strength are part and parcel of her problem. In this period of history, when we are talking about the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, it is tasteless for the Prime Minister to claim this historic change or for the right hon. Gentleman to claim it for her. Stalin created an indefensible system which had to crumble. It is not her work but history working through Europe and Mr. Gorbachev. It is no creation of the Prime Minister.
Column 510
Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Lady is a bad reader of history. She should understand that it was because of the strength of our defences that we reached the position of dialogue. It was because of the discussions with President Gorbachev that my right hon. Friend and many others were able to establish a dialogue, which saw the changes taking place in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. The insistence that we placed on human rights and freedoms, and on the principles and benefits of a free economy, led to the charter for a new Europe being signed this week. History will show that it is the policies that we have pursued consistently as a Government which have brought about this week's notable achievement.
Much has been said about social policies. I should like to say a word about that issue now because there has not yet been an opportunity to respond to those points. The first and most important point is that the economic success and, yes, the economic growth which the Government's policies have made possible have provided a sound basis for the social policies that we have pursued. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook talked about economic growth and economic growth leagues. As he knows, he was selective in choosing one year and comparing it with just one other--
Mr. Hattersley : On the contrary, I took the period that the Prime Minister took and simply corrected her figures.
Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman took two years, but we should take a period as a whole. Taking a five-year period, in real terms the economic growth under the last Labour Government was about 10 per cent., whereas in the past five years of this Government economic growth has been running at over 20 per cent. That is a clear illustration that economic growth is much better now than in the second half of the 1970s. That economic success has made possible the social policies that we have pursued. I ask the House to look at the emphasis that we have consistently placed when determining our priorities for public spending on protecting the most vulnerable groups in our society.
Next year, £32 billion will be spent on the national health service-- 50 per cent. more in real terms than the Labour Government spent in their last year in office. Let us also consider our policies on social security, which is the front line in protecting those least able to care for themselves without help. Again, the ability to help effectively comes only from a strong economy. From next year, we shall be spending £63 billion per year on social security--41 per cent. more in real terms than when Labour left office. Those are big numbers, and they represent an even bigger achievement. Furthermore, support for people in residential care and nursing homes has trebled per head in real terms since 1979, from £20 million in 1979 to £1.1 billion in 1989-90.
We have also protected pensioners, not only by increasing the old age pension, but by extending freedom of choice to pensioners. Personal pensions give people power to save for retirement in whichever way suits them best. More than 4 million people have taken out personal pensions in the past two years. Our economic policies have enabled pensioners' incomes from savings to more than double. Under Labour, the value of their savings fell.
One of the most important points to note is that spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people has doubled in real terms since 1979. We are
Column 511
introducing new benefits and making improvements in existing benefits specifically to help disabled people further. Yesterday the House gave a Second Reading to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill. Those new allowances will help to provide help for more than 300,000 people at a cost of £325 million by 1993-94.Our record on social policies and on caring is second to none. It has been achieved by successful economic policies. That is why, on every front, it is right to say that we should be regarded more favourably than the Labour party when it was in power.
Mr. Spearing rose --
Mr. MacGregor : No, I have said that I shall not give way again. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also referred to Europe. No one who looks at the facts can be in any doubt that the Conservative party is the party that is united on Europe-- [Interruption.]
Mr. MacGregor : I have no doubt about that whatsoever. The vast majority of Conservative Members have always been wholeheartedly committed to our full participation in the European Community. We have long recognised, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her Guildhall speech, that our destiny lies in Europe. The Labour party continues to duck a straight question: how many Opposition Members would unite behind the new pro-European facade erected by the Leader of the Opposition?
Let us examine the record. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook fairly said that he has always been strongly in favour of Britain's membership of the Community--as I have been from my earliest days in politics. I grant the right hon. Gentleman that, but he knows the difficulties that he has always faced in the Labour party. The Labour party has changed its mind no fewer than six times in the past 30 years--six times in the political lifetime of the right hon. Gentleman. The Labour party supported membership of the Community in 1962 and opposed it in 1964. It was for membership again in 1966, and against it in 1971, for membership in 1975, and against it in 1983. Now, to judge from the facade, it is for membership again in 1990. With that track record the Labour party is likely to be against Europe in time for 1992, for it in 1994, against it in 1999 and for it again in 2003 when the Labour party will celebrate 20 years in opposition.
In debates on the European Community the Opposition have never wanted to go into detail about their policies because there are grave divisions not only of principle but also of detail within the party.
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : My right hon. Friend and I have challenged the Leader of the Opposition several times over the speech that he made three years ago when he said that the single market would be an abdication of responsibility and an apology for action. We have not yet received an answer. Will my right hon. Friend challenge him again?
Mr. MacGregor : I made exactly the same point in my speech on the Queen's Speech, but we have still not had an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. That is because he does not understand that it has been this Government and
Column 512
this party who have led the way in the European Community on the single market and his party which has opposed what we have been doing, just as his party supports the social charter which will do so much harm to jobs and our economic strength while it is we who have drawn attention to its deficiencies.The Labour party has made it clear that it believes in the European monetary system, although it says :
"We believe that the European Monetary System, as at present constituted, suffers from too great an emphasis on deflationary measures as a means of achieving monetary targets and that it imposes obligations which are not symmetrical."
So much for the Opposition's claim to support sensible fiscal and monetary policies. They would support entry to the ERM on the very basis which would destroy the benefits that we shall gain from it. In a previous no- confidence debate, the speech by the proposer of the motion contained the following passage :
"The Government have doubled prices, doubled dole queues, doubled debt, diminished our defences and undermined public respect and confidence in the law. There has been a failure not only of policies but of the whole philosophy on which they are based--the philosophy which elevates the State, dwarfs the individual and enlarges the bureaucracy. Across the Western world the tide is turning against that, and soon the same thing will happen here."--[ Official Report, 28 March 1979 ; Vol. 965, c. 740.]
The speaker was my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). It was that speech which led to the end of those policies and that catalogue of disasters. There will be a wholly different outcome to tonight's debate, for we are determined never to see those Labour policies foisted on our nation again.
It is this Government who have secured sustained economic growth in the 1980s greater in sum than that of nearly all other major European countries. It is this Government who have enabled net income for the average family to rise by two-thirds after inflation, compared with a real fall of nearly a fifth in the five years before we took office. It is this Government who have revived private enterprise and respect for success and profits, through privatisation and our fiscal, economic and industrial policies--in contrast to the emphasis on interference, re-nationalisation and new state controls peddled by the Labour party.
It is this Government who have restored international confidence in our economy, so that emergency recourse to the International Monetary Fund is now only a sad and unlamented memory. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) did not have a distinguished career as Chancellor or as a Treasury Minister. By making an entertaining speech today he managed to indulge in a shameless piece of bluff about that episode in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East. The right hon. Gentleman compared the £2.5 billion that he had to borrow from the International Monetary Fund with the £19 billion that he said we borrowed on capital markets about a year ago. He forgot to mention that the PSBR had to be financed at that time, thus causing him to go for additional borrowing from the IMF. That borrowing caused the collapse and the savage reductions in expenditure to enable him to repay the IMF money and caused great damage to our economy.
Mr. Healey : The House will recall that the right hon. Gentleman said that before he finished his winding-up speech he would tell us why he and his colleagues have ditched the Prime Minister. He has only five minutes to go.
Column 513
Before he is completely drowned in the entrails of his word processor, perhaps he will deal with the question that he promised to answer.Mr. MacGregor : I told the right hon. Gentleman that I would respond to a point that he made. I shall continue with the interesting issue of the state into which the right hon. Gentleman got our economy. Taking account of the growth in GDP, the public sector borrowing requirement in that year was equivalent as a proportion of GDP to about £50 billion today. The Government have pursued good financial and spending policies, thus enabling national debt to be repaid rather than being massively increased as it was during the right hon. Gentleman's time in office.
Through the creation of extra wealth, the Government have enabled spending on the priority areas to increase substantially after inflation. Spending on health has increased by nearly 50 per cent. and on schools by more than 40 per cent. per pupil. We have doubled spending on the disabled and on law and order, including the police and dealing with crime, and it is this Government who have seen the total income of pensioners increase by 31 per cent. in real terms since 1979. We have spread ownership on a substantially wider scale than ever before. More than1.5 million council tenants have been enabled to buy their own homes, increasing home ownership--
Mr. Bell : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the interests of the Chair, the House and the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister is entitled to know why she has been dismissed.
Mr. Speaker : That is not a point of order.
Mr. MacGregor : I am making it clear why it is right to reject the motion. The Government have increased home ownership by a quarter, so that over two thirds of homes in Great Britain are now
owner-occupied. We have more than trebled the number of shareholders since 1979 and have revolutionised the extent to which so many of our citizens now have substantial personal or occupational pensions. The Government have seen the creation of 400,000 new businesses and many more people in self- employment. We have done all of that in the face, usually, of outright hostility from the Opposition. We have extended personal choice and have given power back to the people in the choice and variety of schools, medical treatment and income tax, so that people can choose to spend what they have earned rather than have the state spend it for them. All of that is in contrast with the Labour party's usually total opposition to such measures or, in some cases, half-baked skin-deep conversion to them. We have created the conditions for employment to be at an all-time high 3.75 million new jobs since 1983--and we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the European Community. We have introduced the toughest controls on industrial pollution anywhere in Europe, and have put in place the biggest ever investment programme in water quality. We are keeping our defences strong, and that has helped to bring about the collapse of communism.--[ Hon. Members :-- "Why has she gone?"] It is this Government who have so changed the map of political ideas and attitudes in this country that the Labour party has had to
Column 514
abandon practically all of its previous baggage--[ Hon. Members :-- "Why?"] This is a party united on all these great issues and policies, as the Opposition are not--[ Hon. Members :-- "Why?"]Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to. Question put accordingly :--
The House divided : Ayes 247, Noes 367.
Division No. 9] [10 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ashton, Joe
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Beckett, Margaret
Beith, A. J.
Bell, Stuart
Bellotti, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Benton, Joseph
Bermingham, Gerald
Bidwell, Sydney
Blair, Tony
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Boyes, Roland
Bradley, Keith
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Buckley, George J.
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Canavan, Dennis
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Cartwright, John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clay, Bob
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Coleman, Donald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Cox, Tom
Crowther, Stan
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Dr John
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Doran, Frank
Douglas, Dick
Duffy, A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Eadie, Alexander
Eastham, Ken
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Fatchett, Derek
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fisher, Mark
Flannery, Martin
Flynn, Paul
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Foster, Derek
Foulkes, George
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
Galbraith, Sam
Galloway, George
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
George, Bruce
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Gordon, Mildred
Gould, Bryan
Graham, Thomas
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Hardy, Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Henderson, Doug
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Home Robertson, John
Hood, Jimmy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Howells, Geraint
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Hoyle, Doug
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Hume, John
Illsley, Eric
Ingram, Adam
Janner, Greville
Johnston, Sir Russell
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Kennedy, Charles
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
| Next Section
| Home Page |