| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Durant (Reading, West) : I am pleased to speak on the Bill. I do so because, like my colleagues, I have constituents who live in my constituency but work at Aldermaston and Burghfield. I also speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), who represents the area and who, as many hon. Members know, has had a kidney transplant. I am pleased to report that he is mending satisfactorily. We hope that he will return soon. In fact, I have been doing his work for him, but he is now dealing with his own letters, which is one load off my back. He is taking a great interest in these matters.
Aldermaston and Burghfield are highly rated organisations of a very high standard. They integrate well into the local community and employ a large number of people in the area. All my references to them over the years have been based on their high calibre. However, I support the principle of contractorisation, perhaps because I feel, having heard from Ministers, that there is no alternative. I was not entirely satisfied by the answers by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the question why did we not go down the route of having executive agencies. They are part of the Government's proposals in several parts of the civil service. I am still not convinced of the reasons why we did not leave the whole organisation within the civil service. That would have been a better way to proceed, and I should be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about that matter.
My constituents, like those of other hon. Members, are concerned about safety. Are we sure that the contractors will be conscious of safety? This is a volatile, dangerous activity. The present staff have high technical skills. In Reading, I have looked into the incidence of leukaemia among children who live in the area. Nothing has been proved, although there have been many research projects. The local population are worried about this activity being undertaken by the factories. They are dangerous places, and we must be sensitive to the concerns of local people.
I am also worried about security. After all, plenty of people in the world would like to get hold of some of the secrets of the establishment. It seems that other hon.
Column 203
Members were taken all over it, but I was not allowed to go very far. It has been opened up a little, but some of the secrets have rightly been kept. The establishment should be kept as secure as possible. What will happen when the business is run by a contractor rather than those who work there at present?The staff are worried about the future of their pension scheme, as I know from letters which I have received. In 1987, the trade unions and the management encouraged them to join pension schemes rather than to opt out, and they all did. But they are now worried that, having taken that decision, they will be in difficulties. What is the future of those who were in the UKAEA pension scheme? It is not a very good scheme. One of my constituents, for whom I have been battling for years, transferred from that scheme and has had difficulty in getting his money. I am anxious that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should clear up the anxieties which have been expressed.
Those staff who joined the principal civil service pension scheme would like some reassurances--rightly so, because their pension is their future, they work at the establishment and they live in the area. Although it is a nice area in which to live, the work position is not as good as it was. They want to keep their jobs rather than be made redundant. I should like the place to continue to be a successful establishment. I am concerned about those matters and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reassure me. 6.19 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill, which is a welcome and timely measure. As other hon. Members have said, it deals with an important subject. We live in an age in which there has been a proliferation of nuclear weapons and in perhaps as little as 10 years' time, there may be as many as 15 or 20 nuclear powers. It is extremely important that our nuclear deterrent is kept up to date, and Aldermaston and its satellite facilities are central to that. Five years ago, I had the privilege of working briefly as a project manager for a firm of management consultants on a project at the atomic weapons research establishment at Aldermaston and I very much enjoyed the experience. I hasten to add that I now have no financial connection with any body or organisation connected with Aldermaston, with any commercial ventures with which it may now be involved or with any other defence contractor. I found it an interesting experience and I was extremely impressed by the calibre of the scientists at Aldermaston while I was studying the possible contractorisation of one facility.
I welcome the proposal to move to a Government-owned, contractor-operated arrangement for three reasons, two of which have already been covered succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), following my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks. One reason is the need to get away from civil service pay and conditions for specialised, high-grade work in an area in which living costs are exceptionally high. Within the framework of national pay bargaining, it is impossible to deal properly with pay requirements.
Column 204
The second reason is the need to get away from civil service procedures where possible. Some procedures derive inevitably from the requirement for safety, which has been mentioned so often. Other procedures--I heard a lot about this when I was at Aldermaston --are just sheer bureaucracy, such as the need to have continual meetings, to produce minutes of those meetings and to comment on the minutes. There should be scope to get away from that.The third reason, which has not been touched on, is also important and the heart of my contribution is concerned with the contractual arrangements. The two facilities in the world that are closest to the scientific side--I stress the word "scientific" because there is a far larger production side at the sites involved--are the Los Alamos facility and the Lawrence Livermore laboratory in America. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, they are run by the contractor operation of the university of California. That arrangement goes back to the second world war when Los Alamos played its famous role in developing the first atomic bomb. Apart from the appointment of the chief executive, the key part that the university of California plays in its arm's-length relationship with those two facilities is the system of peer review.
Under that system, eminent scientists from the university of California who are not directly involved in the programme periodically sit down with the scientists at the facility, study their work over an extended period and access it. That is very motivating for the scientists concerned. When I was at Aldermaston, it was raised as a complaint that nothing similar happened there. There are nominally a number of Government committees that look at such matters at arm's length. They are sometimes--but not always--manned by people of comparable expertise.
The fact that every scientist once every one or two years has the opportunity to sit eyeball to eyeball with other scientists--and one or two are Nobel prize winners--who will look at their work is a motivating experience. That system also pulls out the occasional rotten apple in the barrel and there are one or two of those even in the best organisations. The scientific side at Aldermaston is extremely good. We must never let the well-publicised problems on the production side detract from the fact that the Aldermaston scientific side has a reputation that is not only world class, but comparable with that of its American counterparts, which have 15 or 20 times as much to spend.
The expression "GOCO" can mean many different things. I visited the successful GOCO shipyard in Sydney, which is the best of the Australian naval dockyards. Sometimes the contractor runs things from top to bottom, as is the case with the Rocky Flats arrangement, the low technology end of the nuclear side in America. Alternatively, there can be a more arm's- length strategic arrangement which the university of California has with the two laboratories that I mentioned.
I firmly believe that for the scientific side at Aldermaston--the minority, but the most important end--it is best to go for the latter arrangement. It is essential that our key scientists there should continue to be Government representatives in the international arena. That is not a quibble about words. In the nuclear business, collaboration--principally with the Americans, but increasingly with the French--is essential. We cannot afford to do everything ourselves. I have it on good authority that it will not be acceptable to those with whom we deal in America or in France to have people arriving at international conferences and being billed as employees of
Column 205
a contractor, rather than as Government representatives. It will be essential for those people to be covered not only by conditions relating to secrecy--which has already been dealt with adequately--but by conditions on commercially confidential intellectual property rights.American and, increasingly, British contractors will not be willing to pass information to people who are not in some way tied to Government. It does not matter to whom they belong as employees. The crucial point is that their conditions of service must involve the key areas of secrecy and of intellectual property rights, and when people go to international conferences, they must bear a label saying "Government representative". That is the case with the key scientists at the two American laboratories although, technically, they are employees of the university of California. That is an important point ; it is not just a quibble.
The Bill is splendid. For a number of reasons, it is right that we should make a GOCO out of Aldermaston. However, it is important that we get the contractual relationship right at the scientific end of the operation so that those who work in the key scientific posts--who may be doing the more sensitive work and who are oriented towards a scientific environment-- maintain and enjoy their present international status through continuing to be recognised as Government representatives at international conferences abroad. They must also continue to be subject to their present constraints on the passing of knowledge. I commend the Bill to the House and I will vote for the Second Reading.
6.27 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : As every hon. Member who has participated this afternoon has said, the Bill is extremely important for many reasons. On Second Reading, we look at those reasons briefly, as we shall go into detail on them in Committee. Many hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, have said that they will support the Bill, but with strong reservations in some areas. I accept that many of them said that because they have substantial constituency interests. It is right that they should look after the workers who live in their constituencies. I only wish that on some occasions they had looked after the interests of workers who live in my constituency. That was not to be and, sadly, this Friday we shall see the end of the last coal mine in the Rhondda valley. It is the end of a great era in British history. But there we are. Self-interest is as good a motive as any in politics. If people come to our side through self-interest, who am I to deny that?
I am sure that Conservative Members will be rushing to fill the Committee and I look forward to their support. I know that the Government Whip is greatly relieved at the possibility of having all these worthy gentlemen sitting on the Committee. He will not have to dragoon anyone. Of course, if they support our amendments, the Government Whip will be in greater trouble. I am looking forward to the Committee and, if necessary, to doing battle with the Under-Secretary of State. His unfailing courtesy will mean that he will listen to our arguments. However, as I have always said, we win the arguments but lose the votes.
The Bill is a response to incompetence. That has been acknowledged and was illustrated by the hon. Member for
Column 206
Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who had the honesty and decency to acknowledge that he was part of the incompetence for a brief period. We will forgive him.Mr. Brazier : The House understands that the hon. Gentleman has to fill his speech somehow, but he should not throw random barbs around the Chamber. He must have heard me say that Aldermaston has on its scientific side a world-class reputation disproportionate to the amount of money it spends.
Mr. Rogers : Yes. I often wondered what the hon. Gentleman was doing there.
The Bill is a response to the Government's incompetence. They are acknowledging that they cannot run the atomic weapons establishments. It is an open and honest acknowledgment. The enormous criticism of the Government's performance in the past year or so is finalised in the Bill. It is a bolt-hole Bill. They are running away from the problem by saying, "You do it." They are hoping to offload the problem on to a private company. Of course, the private company does not mind because it will receive substantial resources from the Government. It will probably be a substantial contributor to the Conservative party, but there we are. That is called the recirculation of Government money.
The Government will have to face the same problems because they will not go away. The problems of today will be the same next year and the year after. The difficulty is that there will be one stage in between and the Government may have more problems in the future than they have now.
It is strange that in the proposals the problems have now been identified. On the Conservative Benches are all the business men, managers and those such as the hon. Member for Canterbury who visit such establishments. I should have thought that once the problems have been identified and once it has been acknowledged that they are not intractable, one should just apply oneself and resolve them. The Government are not doing that. They are saying, "We are incapable of managing these institutions and running the business, so please do it for us." This is privatisation in a real sense. Talking about contractorisation obfuscates the truth. It is a Government- owned, contractor-operated privatisation.
We shall be looking closely at how the capital assets are to be controlled. I am not sure whether they will be handed over to the company or whether they will be in the form of a lease. It is a little ambiguous in the Bill, but we shall pursue it later. I wonder whether the company knows what a shambles some of the buildings are. Is it aware of the Government's incompetence in relation to construction contracts, particularly the A90 buildings constructed specifically for the Trident warhead?
We are not talking about the privatisation of an engineering company or a consumer commodity such as water or electricity. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, this is the privatisation of the means of production of the most fearful weapons known to mankind. I honestly and sincerely believe that it should not be in private hands. Also, it is the privatisation of the production of material at the very frontiers of technology, not only in engineering and electronics but in physics and chemistry with potential dangers for safety within and without the establishments. We heard the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friend the
Column 207
Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) talk of the serious problems that could occur in the Cardiff residential area if there happened to be an escape of, for example, beryllium gases. That is possible unless security and safety are tightly controlled.Someone said to me, "Why are you bothered about this Bill? Many weapons are produced by private companies." Of course, under this Government, with the giveaway of Royal Ordnance, almost all the production of weapons is now in private hands. This is different. We are not talking about aeroplanes, ships, tanks or weapon delivery systems, but about the ultimate explosives being constantly enhanced through research at these establishments.
We shall wish to discuss many issues in Committee, not least those raised, rightly, by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) about the precise position on pensions. Other hon. Members on both sides have mentioned the security of employment of those presently working in the establishments. Will they have jobs for the period of a contract? For my sins, I happen to be a geologist by profession and I worked for some time on contracts that were for a specific period. If we give a contract to a private company, will we be telling it to take on workers under a specific contract, or will it be told, "Treat your workers as you like"? Will the Government wash their hands of the workers once they have been handed over to the private contractors? Is that what it is about? We shall pursue that matter in Committee. Conservative Members are now feeling the pinch that has been felt over the past 10 years under this Government by hon. Members in Wales, Scotland and the north of England because substantial numbers of their constituents may be thrown out of work. As I said, the physical framework and fabric--the buildings and surroundings--of the atomic weapons establishments are in an appalling condition. The Government know that that is so. At Aldermaston we have had one of the most appalling examples of the Government's inefficiency and mismanagement of the defence industry. The construction of the A90 buildings is a saga of cost and time overruns, overcharging and profiteering. It is a sad and sorry mess and, in the near future, I am sure that it will lead to criminal charges. Not even this Government can sweep that amount of dirt under the carpet. The Minister knows about that, because the information has been laid before the Ministry of Defence. It has not acted upon it yet, but it will eventually because it will have to. The problem is not just the buildings and problems with the roof, but items such as stainless steel tanks that have welding problems and may, for example, allow the emission of toxic gases into the atmosphere. Similar gases may be released into the Cardiff area.
That work was done to British Nuclear Fuels specifications, was privately constructed and inspected and approved by the Ministry of Defence yet it had to be done all over again because it was unsafe. Who picked up the bill for the extra millions of expenditure? The taxpayer. That does not fill me with confidence about the proposals in the Bill for the production, the supervision of both performance and safety, and the ultimate delivery of the
Column 208
finished product--the nuclear warhead--on time. I am at a loss to understand how some of the proposals will operate, and we shall explore them in Committee.Another point that we shall examine in Committee is the relationship of sub -contractors within the contracts. In paragraph 303 of this year's defence estimates the Government said : "On all contracts worth more than £1 million we review with the prime contractor his plans for awarding sub- contract work, paying special attention to sub-contracts to his subsidiaries."
Where in the Bill is that assurance carried through to this contractorisation? Will the Government inspect sub-contractors or will they simply hand over inspection to the contractors? I am worried about not only the health and safety aspect but the performance of sub-contractors within the overall contracts. Incidentally, I noticed that in paragraph 304 of the estimate, the Government said :
"We firmly believe in the advantages of prime contractors managing projects on our behalf . Taut contracts with firm or fixed prices and the use of payments linked to achievements give the prime contractor a clear interest in speedy and efficient development and production."
That is quite a departure for the Government. I am not sure how they will achieve that aim. They have never done so in the past 10 years.
During the opening speech by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, I, like several other hon. Members, was disappointed by his response to a question about consultation with the trade union movement. He had an absolute ideological block. A gate dropped and he said, "No, we will not consult." The Minister was at pains to say that only the views of Members of Parliament could be considered. His words were, "Parliament is supreme." That is ironic because the only reason why we are discussing this matter tonight is that the Government are determined to pass the AWEs out of the control of Parliament. On one aspect, the Minister beats his breast about the strength and supremacy of this place, yet the Government spend all their time moving responsibility for issues such as this out of this Chamber. Therefore, they make public accountability even more difficult.
Sir David Mitchell : The hon. Gentleman seems to have misconstrued what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said. My hon. Friend said that consultation in Committee could be only with Members of Parliament. Clearly, that is correct.
Mr. Rogers : Yes. I know that that is what the Minister hedged back on. But those of us who know the Minister and some of the Conservative Members present readily identify the ideological block which arose as soon as the words "trade unions" were mentioned. The Minister also gave some reasons for the exemptions in the schedule. A Conservative Member, not I, said that he did not find the reasons convincing. Nor do Opposition Members. The privileges and immunities which clause 3 extends to the new GOCOs are matters which we shall examine closely in Committee. We give the Minister warning now that we might spend long hours on the schedule, because its effect is to exempt the AWE from most of the controls that would apply to privately owned factories.
It is intended that 13 Acts of Parliament will be suspended including the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Explosives Act 1923 and the Planning
Column 209
(Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. I am not yet convinced that the new compliance body is capable of protecting the public interest. The exemptions may protect the Crown--that is what they are for--but that is of little help to people who work in or live near the AWEs. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, we shall want to examine the legal basis of the compliance office. I have taken my allocation of time. As I said, the proposals are the Government's response to their incompetence and inability to run the AWEs. We believe, as do some Conservative Members, that there are better ways to resolve the problems. We shall oppose the measure here and in Committee.6.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : This has been a useful debate and in the time available I shall seek to respond to the points raised. If I cannot do so, I shall write to hon. Members on the matters which they raised. I look forward to the careful scrutiny of the Bill in Committee. I am encouraged to feel that we might survey at great leisure the highways and byways of the Rhondda constituency. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has much to teach us about his constituency.
This is a technical Bill and it must be argued closely. I shall listen carefully to the points made in Committee, because it is important in a Bill of this nature to get it absolutely right. I pay tribute right at the beginning of my speech to the people who work at the AWEs. I have had the privilege of meeting some of them and I shall meet more. They are dedicated people. Many have worked in the establishments for many years, serving the country. I recognise their skill and dedication and, as I shall describe later, we intend fully to protect their position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) asked about consultation. His point was correct. We take seriously the need to consult everyone who might be affected by the Bill. Whenever I go to the establishments, I make sure that I meet the trade union representatives. I shall listen carefully to what they say about the Bill. I want to know their fears, because they represent the people who will be affected. Indeed, many of the points raised by hon. Members in the debate are the same as those made to me by people in the trade unions.
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : My hon. Friend the Minister has given some helpful assurances. The staff at AWE Foulness, some of whom are my constituents, have been confused by the assurances given to them over a period. When consideration of the Bill is completed, would not it be helpful if every member of staff were given a small sheet of paper outlining the various assurances given? If the facts are known it might help to remove many of the uncertainties that have arisen.
Mr. Carlisle : My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have developed good lines of communication. We are sending out to the staff various pieces of paper that explain our approach to pensions and so forth. However, his point about communications is important.
I remind the House of the purpose of the Bill. At its heart is our need to ensure that we manufacture our
Column 210
nuclear deterrent in the most effective way possible. That is our duty at the Ministry of Defence. The operations of the AWEs combine research and development and manufacturing. It is our experience and belief that those activities are managed far better in the private than in the public sector.My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) asked why the AWE could not remain an agency. The truth is that agency status does not provide the flexibility to employ the necessary people or full professional management. At the halfway stage, there are only 20 people from the private sector and they cannot bring all the skills to manage this manufacturing facility to the best of their ability. We have learnt the lesson that manufacturing is best done by people in the private sector. In the manufacture of atomic warheads, it is absolutely essential that the assets remain owned by the Government. That is why the Government will continue to own the buildings, machinery and equipment in the establishment. The contract that we draw up with the contractors will define clearly the parameters of their activities.
Many hon. Members are worried about safety. My hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West, for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and for Reading, West asked about it. I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West that our hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) is making good progress. I also know of his interest. Labour Members have also voiced their anxiety about safety.
Safety is a key concern. It will be built into the heart of the contract. We already have many safeguards and more will be added after the contract. The safety division, which will continue, will report to the chief executive as it does now. The Health and Safety Executive has an important part to play in the supervision of safety and will continue that activity.
There is one additional safeguard. At present, the Government own and run the AWE and cannot be prosecuted. After full
contractorisation if the employer contravenes the health and safety provisions, he can be prosecuted. There will be an extra layer of safety. A compliance office will be well manned by Ministry of Defence officials and will ensure that all safety aspects are fully complied with. If, by some unimaginably stupid act, the contractor fails to comply with safety as he should, the compliance office can cancel the contract. If it does so, it will be easy for the Ministry of Defence to return the AWE to Government management. That facility exists in the Bill.
I had an interesting, enjoyable and instructive visit to the plant at Cardiff. The employees there told me that they were worried about safety. They would be absolutely certain to make their fears known if there were any likelihood of their being asked to do anything that was unsafe or involved unsafe practices. Our best policemen for safety are the employees themselves.
We have had a substantial building programme to improve buildings and make them safer. In contrast to what the hon. Member for Rhondda says, the A90 building has been finished. It is safe and modern. The problems faced there are a good example of how badly managed buildings often are in the public sector.
Mr. Rogers : Will the Minister give way?
Column 211
Mr. Carlisle : I have too little time.The ultimate guarantee of safety is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for the safety at AWE. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West asked about radiation. It is important to note that the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment said that radiation from Aldermaston was negligible and could not endanger local people. Everyone who has contact wears dose meters and is monitored. Our aim is to reduce exposure to radiation. At present, one is exposed to less radiation in Aldermaston than in the natural environment--less than 2 mSv a year.
Hon. Members raised the important matter of security. Obviously, in the production of nuclear warheads everyone has an interest in security. The Ministry of Defence police will look after security, as they do now. They will remain employed by the Ministry of Defence and security will be their responsibility. There will also be proper vetting of everyone who works there by the Ministry of Defence, as there is now.
All hon. Members are anxious about employment conditions. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said, we shall ensure that the conditions of those who are transferred from the civil service to employment under a contractor will be protected.
Many of my hon. Friends asked about pensions. I can give the commitment that pensions will be as good in future as they are now. They will be index -linked. Moreover, we shall consult fully. We intend to issue a document in January--we hope to do so before the Committee stage starts--and to discuss it.
Mr. O'Neill : Can the Minister say whether staff who are taken on after contractorisation will have index-linked pensions?
Mr. Carlisle : Those people will have access to the same pension scheme as we shall negotiate for the employees who transfer. Moreover, for the first time some employees will be trustees who will help to look after the terms and conditions of the pension fund. We give that guarantee. I know what a worry it is. In the same way, if anyone should be made redundant--I do not in the least expect it, because our programme for the nuclear deterrent is firm--the redundancy terms will be as good as they are now.
AWE employees will have greater scope. They will be away from bureaucracy and its frustrations. As properly managed people with great skills, they will have greater scope.
Many other important points were raised and I look forward to debating them in Committee. This is a technical Bill and we must be careful.
This is a simple Bill, the aim of which is to enable us to be certain of meeting our nuclear weapons programmes in the most effective way possible. It is important for national security. At the same time, we are committed, above all, to the safety and security of the operation and our proposals will ensure that. We shall safeguard the terms and conditions of employment of the work force and ensure that pensions will be just as good as they would have been without this change.
In reality, management by the private sector within the secure ownership of the Government will lead to a more
Column 212
efficient operation and better prospects for the employees. This is a practical and sensible way forward, and I commend the Bill to the House.Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time : The House divided : Ayes 292, Noes 221.
Division No. 34] [7 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert
Aitken, Jonathan
Alexander, Richard
Allason, Rupert
Amos, Alan
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Ashby, David
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkinson, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Baldry, Tony
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Beggs, Roy
Bellingham, Henry
Bendall, Vivian
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Benyon, W.
Bevan, David Gilroy
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Body, Sir Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Buck, Sir Antony
Budgen, Nicholas
Burt, Alistair
Butler, Chris
Butterfill, John
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Carttiss, Michael
Cash, William
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher
Churchill, Mr
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Colvin, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cormack, Patrick
Cran, James
Critchley, Julian
Currie, Mrs Edwina
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Devlin, Tim
Dicks, Terry
Dorrell, Stephen
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Dunn, Bob
Durant, Tony
Dykes, Hugh
Eggar, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter
Evennett, David
Fallon, Michael
Favell, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Fishburn, John Dudley
Fookes, Dame Janet
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Forth, Eric
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Fox, Sir Marcus
Franks, Cecil
Freeman, Roger
Fry, Peter
Gale, Roger
Gardiner, George
Gill, Christopher
Goodhart, Sir Philip
Goodlad, Alastair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Gorst, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Grist, Ian
Ground, Patrick
Grylls, Michael
Hague, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Hannam, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Harris, David
Haselhurst, Alan
Hayes, Jerry
Hayward, Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, David
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Hill, James
Hind, Kenneth
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Hordern, Sir Peter
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Hunter, Andrew
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Irvine, Michael
Jack, Michael
Jackson, Robert
Janman, Tim
Jessel, Toby
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Key, Robert
Kilfedder, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Kirkhope, Timothy
| Next Section
| Home Page |