| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Lofthouse : It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my speech. At no time have I said that. At no time would I agree that, when legislation has passed through the House, we would do anything to alter it, apart from through the normal democratic procedures of the House, or decide on the legislation for the period of the life of that Government. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to misquote me again. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. At no time did I even remotely suggest what Labour's policy would be on this issue. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he said.
Mr. Brown : The hon. Gentleman has said that at no time in his speech did he suggest what Labour's policy would be. I do not know what he is saying-- [Hon. Members :-- "Withdraw."] I am simply saying that, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that there are no circumstances in which the Bill would be repealed once it is an Act--
[Interruption.] Is that what he is saying? I thought that the whole purpose of an election was that one Government could repeal the legislation of the previous Government. If the Labour party has no intention of repealing any of the legislation passed by the Conservative party during this or the previous two Parliaments, I suppose that we can view the prospect of a Labour Government with some hope.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : Steady on.
Opposition Members seem to be protesting tonight that they want to see the Bill on the statute book-- [Interruption.] Well, I believe that that is what they are fumbling their way towards. They are trying to say, "Look, we have been making speeches in which we have pretended to be against the Bill, but underneath all our threadbare arguments--of course, we really have no arguments--we recognise that gas-fired power stations are
Column 1059
the way of the future. We recognise the power of theargument deployed by the hon. Member for Stroud"Mr. Redmond : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you could draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) the fact that he should not turn his back on the Chair, and especially not on a lady.
Madam Deputy Speaker : I can frequently see the pleasant face of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Brown : May I reassure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, even more frequently, I can see your pleasant face when you are in the Chair? Indeed, it is always a great privilege to face you when you are in the Chair.
Opposition Members seem to have been fumbling their way towards saying--
Mr. Illsley rose --
Mr. Brown : I should like to develop this point, but I will consider giving way in a moment.
Opposition Members seem to have been belatedly fumbling their way to saying, "We have been making threadbare speeches this evening, but we realise that we have no argument whatsoever for opposing gas-fired power stations. We recognise that they are far cleaner than coal-fired power stations. We recognise that they emit only half the carbon dioxide of equivalent coal-fired power stations, virtually no sulphur dioxide, and only one quarter of the nitrogen oxide emissions of an equivalent coal- fired power station. Therefore, on environmental grounds, we recognise that there is no way in which we can stand in the way of such power station developments." If that is what Opposition Members are saying, I do not understand why they are likely to seek to divide the House at the end of the debate. Mr. Meale rose --
Mr. Malcolm Moss (Cambridgeshire, North-East) rose
Mr. Brown : I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss).
Mr. Moss : Does my hon. Friend think that Opposition Members might also take on board the fact that generating electricity from gas costs about 2.5p per kWh, compared with coal which costs between 3p and 3.5p per kWh?
Mr. Brown : It was clear from the Opposition's protestations earlier in my speech that, if the Bill is enacted, there is no way in which a Labour Government would seek to repeal it. Clearly, one reason for that is the one outlined by my hon. Friend. Gas is one of the cheapest ways of generating electricity. The hon. Member for Rother Valley has said that the general public do not concern themselves with the manner in which electricity is provided, but I know that, when they receive their electricity bills, the general public do concern themselves with the manner in which the electricity is passed through the electric lights in their houses. I have received many letters from constituents who are worried at their high
Column 1060
electricity bills. Even Opposition Members know that there is the prospect of lower electricity bills with gas power generation.Mr. Barron : The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), has shares in one of the electricity companies. Will the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes join us in condemning the proposed 13 per cent. increase in electricity shares in the privatised companies in an attempt to protect his constituents, just as we wish to protect ours?
Mr. Brown : If the Bill becomes law as quickly as possible, it may be possible to reduce electricity charges more quickly. I hope that many private Bills of this nature will come before the House in the next Parliament, whether there is a Conservative or a Labour Government, because the way to bring down electricity costs is to ensure that we do not pay the unnecessarily high costs of electricity generation that we pay now. Gas- fired power stations are one of the most environmentally beneficial ways of producing electricity. They are also--
Mr. Illsley : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown : I will just finish this sentence and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman--I am sorry that I forgot my promise to give way.
Gas-powered electricity generation will in the long run be extremely cost- effective for the consumer.
Mr. Illsley : The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that Opposition Members opposed jobs being created in South Humberside. Why did he oppose the Nirex depository being sited in his area? That would have brought jobs to his constituency. How can he accuse us of not wanting to bring jobs to the area?
Mr. Brown : The hon. Gentleman clearly did not attend any of the interminable debates between 1984 and 1987 when I was constantly in the House speaking on the nuclear waste issue. If he had been in the House and had listened to the reasons that I gave for opposing a nuclear waste site in my constituency, he would know that I said that no jobs would accrue to my constituents. I also drew attention to the fact that the site which Nirex, the subsidiary company of the Central Electricity Generating Board, wanted to use in 1986-87 had been intended for a power station ever since the end of the war in 1945. During our battles against Nirex in 1985-86 and 1987, the fundamental basis of my argument was that the site had always been reserved for a power station. Indeed, in 1972, there was a proposal to build an oil-fired power station. In 1972, a Bill was brought before the House to provide the powers to build it. I opposed the use of the site as a dump for nuclear waste, because it was intended for a power station.
It is as a result of my winning the battle against the nuclear waste dump that this private Bill is before the House today. But for my victory on that issue in 1986, we should not have the Bill. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) should refer to the Hansard reports of those debates and examine the arguments that I deployed.
Mr. Meale : Talking of consistency, perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who has just explained why people should support the construction of a gas- fired power station, will
Column 1061
tell the House why he supported the construction of a private port in his constituency to import coal from abroad.Mr. Brown : It just shows that I always put the consumer first. I am concerned ultimately about competition. My constituency will be available for people to bring their wares through the port of Immingham. My constituency has a wide variety of industry. We have an oil refinery and a large port and now we are to have two power stations. My constituency is in the vanguard of producing alternatives for the benefit of the consumer in the energy business. Customers can look to Brigg and Cleethorpes and see electricity, gas, power stations and the Conoco oil refinery. My constituency offers a choice to consumers of various ways of generating energy and power. I commend the Bill to the House. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will be the toast of my constituents for the way in which he presented it.
9.34 pm
Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian) : The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) reminds me of Dickens's Artful Dodger ; every time he is asked a question, he dodges it. He always seems to be ungracious ; when it is pointed out that he has referred to things that have not been said, he does not have the courtesy to withdraw. His speech was practically verbatim the speech he made last time. He will have to get a speech writer, because he has run out of ideas on what to say in debates.
In the preamble, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) talked much sense. For example, he said that we should be concerned about security of supply. I think he also mentioned concern for our children and grandchildren. When he was giving his discourse on when a pipe is not a pipe, he reminded me of an experience I had when I was in Seattle to give a lecture on alternative sources of energy.
I cannot remember all the details, but before I gave my lecture, a young Congressman spoke to the packed audience. He said that he was very busy as a Congressman and that he had to have a speech writer, but that there were dangers in having a speech writer. He described to the audience what had happened to another Congressman. As that Congressman went on to the platform to address a meeting, a speech was thrust into his hands. He proceeded to read it. It was an appeal to the electors which went something like this, "Vote for me and I will reduce taxation on motor cars and petrol ; vote for me and education will be entirely free ; vote for me and pensions will be doubled or trebled." He came to the end of the page and turned to the next page where it said, "Now let me explain how I am going to pay for it all." Underneath it said, "You sonofabitch, I found out that you have been seeing my wife. Explain it all yourself."
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth delivered his speech with good humour. I tried to explain to him that there is always a danger when one is delivering a written speech.
Mr. Dickens : I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind things that he has said about my speech. I was careful to give credit to Labour Members for their deeply held views on and support for the coal industry. I think I
Column 1062
also said that I stand square with them in their support of the coal industry. The promoters of the Bill are also very committed to the British coal industry. The hon. Gentleman must not lose sight of that.Mr. Eadie : I am not trying to be critical of the hon. Gentleman in any way. He has made many comments in the House with which I disagree, but I know that he has been very supportive of many aspects of the coal industry. I hope that he will not take offence. I did not think that, particularly in his preamble, he was offensive to me or my hon. Friends or about the coal industry. It is important to examine the hon. Gentleman's preamble, because, when talking about security of supply, we must consider energy provision.
I know that the Bill will be debated at length in Committee, but when it first appeared, mistakes were made. I do not have the time to go into them now, and the House would not want to listen. Since the first appearance of the Bill, however, massive changes have occurred relating to energy provision. For example, the Gulf war--I do not want to go into that now-- has made an impact on that provision. The use of gas for electricity power generation is irresponsible--I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) about that. We do not have enough indigenous gas to meet our needs ; we must import it.
I know that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth supports the coal industry. When we talk about energy provision a la security of supply, we are fortunate, because we have enormous supplies of indigenous coal. In that case, should we be considering security of supply? I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to ensure that we have safe, adequate supplies of energy. I have often addressed the House on the importance of having an indigenous provision of energy. That means everything to us, because, if we do not have energy provision, we shall die. It is of crucial importance.
We are entitled to scrutinise the Bill carefully. My only concern is that many of my hon. Friends who want to speak will not have the opportunity to do so before someone shouts for a vote at 10 o'clock. I do not believe that that does us damage, but, should it happen, it greatly damages Parliament, because one of the criticisms of this place is that we do not spend enough time debating legislation. I do not minimise the importance of this debate, as we are talking about something that sustains life.
When I was considering what to say in this debate, I recalled what Dr. Ernst Schumacher, the extremely talented German chief economic adviser to the National Coal Board from 1950 to 1970 said on pit closures. It is well worth remembering how he described the policy of closing mines that had not been exhausted--my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford has already described that policy as one of vandalism and irresponsibility. Dr. Schumacher said : "It is a policy of doubtful wisdom and questionable morality for this generation to take all the best resources and leave for its children only the worst. But surely it is a criminal policy if, in addition, we wilfully sterilise, abandon, and thereby ruin such relatively inferior resources as we ourselves have opened up, but do not care to utilise. This is like the spiteful burglar who does not merely pinch the valuables but in addition, destroys everything he cannot take".
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford mentioned the tremendous amount of investment that the
Column 1063
Government have made. No one can argue about that, but as quickly as they invest, they destroy. Nowadays, comparatively new pits are closed, which means that the investment is, to some extent, a fraud on the nation.My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) will know that, at present, I am battling for the reopening of Monktonhall colliery, which is mothballed, is not closed and contains millions of tonnes of coal. The local authorities have completed a study and produced an argument to show how it could be viable. I regret that they have had trouble meeting Ministers or the chairman of British Coal to discuss the plan, which was drawn up by independent consultants. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be difficult to make a more eloquent critique of the Government's present policy, not only on coal but on energy provision, than the words of Ernst Schumacher, whom I quoted earlier.
During the debate, figures have been bandied about on the provision of natural gas. It is generally conceded that its provision is limited. I hope, if I have time, to come to the issue of price, which was quoted by Conservative Members to further the Bill's Second Reading. I wish to introduce into the debate a western European, rather than merely a British, dimension, because that is relevant to us today.
The war we are waging in the Gulf involves a coalition of forces. One hopes that there will be a coalition of forces and forms of collective security to preserve the peace. But if we talk about collective security in relation to defence and war, we should talk about it in relation to energy provision. There is nothing inconsistent in that.
Western Europe has 31 years of proven natural gas reserves at the 1989 production rate, although half the reserves are held by non-EC countries such as Norway. Western Europe's proven oil reserves are much smaller--only 13 years at current production rates, with Norway holding half of them. The preliminary remarks of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth were valuable, because he too has been thinking about that dimension. The world reserves of gas and oil are only 55 years and 44 years respectively. The House should use those figures when talking about security of supply and energy provision for our people. The EC probably has a minimum of 200 years coal reserves at current production rates. That is a viable insurance policy as oil and gas run out. In the EC, there are hundreds of years of technically recoverable reserves of coal.
Coal is probably the most complex of our hydrocarbon resources, it can be converted into many petroleum products and substitute natural gas. That will become necessary in the early part of the next century. When I was a Minister, I was proud to sign an agreement with Sir Derek Ezra, then the chairman of the National Coal Board, to set up three pilot plants to make oil from coal. Different systems were used, but I shall not bore the House with the details. We abuse our scientists far too much because Britain is good at technology. We are an inventive nation. We decided that the best of the three pilot projects would be examined to see if it was commercially viable. I am sorry to say that the 1979 general election intervened. My successor said that that was the right way to deal with science and technology, but, despite a promise that the projects would carry on, I am afraid that they were buried, because the Government are anti-science and anti-technology. I am sorry to say that, because such an attitude affects the whole nation and in future may affect its wealth.
Column 1064
A rapidly declining coal industry cannot sustain the level of research and development that is needed to prove new technologies of coal liquefaction and gasification. The coal industry continues to decline, and we ruthlessly close pits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford has said, when a pit is closed, there is no way of regaining access to that God-given wealth. How can we develop the new technologies when we are destroying our indigenous capacity to produce coal?Mr. Jack Thompson : In areas such as mine, and on the eastern coast of Scotland where the mines extend under the North sea, closed mines are certainly written off, because there is no way in which one can gain access to them. That is because the North sea has flooded the workings and the cost of getting back at those reserves would be prohibitive.
Mr. Eadie : I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I know his area well. There was talk in his area about gas and oil. The coalfield in his constituency is very old, and I had a suspicion that all the coal had not been worked. I proposed a working party to examine my hon. Friend's coalfield, because we had discovered from examinations that in many areas there is sometimes more coal than was ever mined. It was possible to discover that because North sea oil exploration has introduced new seismic studies. I do not know whether that applies to my hon. Friend's area, but I had proposed that a working party carry out an examination of that area. I believe that that is the function of Government. After all, as I said earlier, we are talking about wealth.
In recent years, Britain has been the only net exporter of energy in the EC. In 1988, United Kingdom primary energy production accounted for 39 per cent. of all the primary energy produced in the EC. United Kingdom coal accounted for 10 per cent. of the total. This was one of the few secure long-term resources of the Community. We must look at this matter in a European and global context. When I was gathering these figures, I was surprised to learn that the EC is now nearly 50 per cent. dependent on imported energy. That figure would increase to 55 per cent. if the United Kingdom were to abandon its deep-mine industry and instead import coal, gas and oil. If all EC hard coal production were to cease, and if current consumption rates were to continue, the level of dependency would rise to over 60 per cent.
Mr. Meale : I do not want to disturb the direction of my hon. Friend's speech, but may I ask him to dwell for a moment on the question of the people who work in coalfields throughout the world? I am thinking of the ages of workers, and so on.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. I find it a little difficult to relate the remarks of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) to the contents of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take note of that.
Mr. Eadie : I understand the point that you are making, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I appreciate your tolerance. However, I am dealing with points that have already been raised in the debate. As has been said, it will be a scandal if a vote is taken at 10 o'clock. Many of my hon. Friends want to speak.
There has been reference to gas imports, and some very optimistic scenarios have been put forward. It is only right that I should comment on some of them. In 1990, gas imports amounted to 81.4 million tonnes equivalent. Most
Column 1065
scenarios anticipate that, by the year 2010, that figure will have doubled. At the end of 1990, the European authorities removed the restrictions on the use of gas in power generation. It is likely, therefore, that there will be many new gas-fired power stations, but where will the gas come from? That question is indeed relevant to this Bill.We could also ask about the price. For some time, it has been assumed that, except in the case of Norway, the gas will come from the Soviet Union and, to a lesser extent, from Algeria. As the energy crisis in the Soviet Union deepens, this assumption becomes questionable. For that reason, as well as for others, we should question this whole proposition. In 1989, for the first time, Soviet gas production, at 796 billion cu m, failed to meet the planned target of 820 billion cu m. The increase of 26 billion cu m from 1988 did not make up for the drop in oil, gas and nuclear production. The collapse of Soviet oil output from the record624 million tonnes in 1990 is forcing the Soviet Union to use more of its own gas supplies. Falling production and the deep crisis in the nuclear industry places even more pressure on the gas industry. In the wake of a series of minor strikes, coal production fell by 32 tonnes to740 million tonnes in 1989. It fell by a further 4.8 per cent. during the first seven months of 1990, compared with the equivalent period in 1989. There has also been the Chernobyl disaster.
We must appreciate the true position about gas. The EC--that includes us-- has only 2.2 per cent. of the world's gas reserves. Western Europe as a whole, at 1989 production levels, has gas reserves of 31.3 years, which is the smallest amount per region, after north America. That shows that it would be a scandal if the Bill, which would mean the burning of gas, were to go through unchallenged.
I can give the figures for gas reserves region by region. North America has 12.6 years, which is a 6.5 per cent. share of the total. South America has 75 years, which represents 5.8 per cent. ; western Europe has 31.3 years, which represents 4.9 per cent. ; the USSR--on which people have pinned their faith--has 53.2 years, which represents 37.6 per cent. ; eastern Europe has 14 years, which represents 0.7 per cent. ; Africa has 110 years, which represents 6.7 per cent. ; Algeria has 72.3 years, which represents 2.9 per cent. ; Asia/Australasia has 55.3 years, which represents 7.1 per cent. ; the middle east has 350 years, which represents 30.7 per cent. The source for those figures is British Petroleum.
The middle east has 350 years of reserves, of which Iran has the largest share, with 12.5 per cent. of the total, followed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi, each with 4 per cent. of the total. Declining reserves and the growing import tendency are now being combined with uncertainty about prices. The belief that gas prices are being decoupled from oil prices is no longer sustainable because of the price increases following the third- world shock.
I was astonished that one Conservative Member, who argued in favour of the Bill, tried to promise that, if we allowed the Bill to go through, it would mean a decrease in electricity prices. An examination of the facts shows that to be a bogus claim. In 2010, we will be confronted with a 40 per cent. increase. Solid fuel is to some extent different.
Column 1066
Security of supply is a central issue. Oil reserves in western Europe have only about a 12.6-year life at current rates of gas production. Reserves stand at only 31.3 per cent., increasing the insecurity of supply.Mr. Meale : Will my hon. Friend dwell a little more on the implications of the insecurity of the Gulf, the Soviet bloc and South America for maintaining supplies at gas stations such as the one in the Bill?
Mr. Eadie : For the convenience of the House, I skipped many of my figures, but I showed that, if gas is a diminishing supply--of all the fossil fuels, it contracts--the future of power stations is bound to be jeopardised.
Gas is a wonderful fuel. A lot can be done with it. We are fortunate to have the reserves we do. Unfortunately, we are consuming more than we are finding. The world is consuming more than it is finding. At one time, it was thought that the best way to use natural gas would be in developing the petrochemical industry--the by-products that could be obtained from it. However, we have changed our minds quite a bit on that.
Gas reserves were originally believed to be more limited than is now thought to be the case. It used to be thought that, come the late 1990s, gas reserves would be exhausted. There have been more finds, which we welcome, but there have been no really magnificent finds. Those who are hell-bent on using gas as a means of generating electricity place much faith in the belief that, although they confess that we would not have enough indigenous gas, cheap gas would be available from the Soviet Union which could be transported by pipes running below the North sea. But that will not materialise. There is much instability in the world at the present. To some extent, the Gulf war is part of the energy production crisis.
Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : The hon. Gentleman is right to say that gas and coal reserves will eventually be exhausted. Does he not agree that the generation of electricity by nuclear power will become more important in future?
Mr. Eadie : I have taken part in many debates on the topic of nuclear power generation. The hon. Gentleman must face up to the problem that--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The real problem seems to be that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is being led astray by that intervention.
Mr. Eadie : I understand why the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) asked that question, but the alternative of nuclear power is not the one before us. I was only going to remark that nuclear power is just too unforgiving at present, and I cannot see myself ever being able to forget that.
The security of supply argument was advanced at the start of this debate in support of the Bill. Western Europe's oil reserves have a life of only 12.6 years at current production rates, and gas reserves will last for only 31.3 years. The European scenario has been projected as far ahead as 2010. World oil and gas reserves will also be quickly depleted over the next 20 years. That inherent insecurity will add to the problem of external supply, and is a central issue in formulating not only a national energy policy but an EC- wide policy.
Column 1067
Apart from the moral question whether or not western Europe should continue to monopolise 31 per cent. of world oil imports, the central issue of security must also be considered.Mr. Knapman rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put :--
The House proceeded to a Division :
Mr. Hood (seated and covered) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but I suspect that it is more a point of frustration. It might be better if he put the point to me after the Division, when it will be easier both for the House and for me to hear.
Mr. Hood : I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is certainly not a point of frustration. At the beginning of the debate, I raised a point about the credibility of the private Bill procedure. It seems strange that the three-hour debate that we were originally allowed should be cut short. The Bill has 37 clauses. Surely it is not in the interests of the House to allow such a short debate on Second Reading, and I ask you to extend it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not able to speak in the debate, and I am sorry about that, but he did manage to make some interventions.
The hon. Gentleman's point is not a point of order for the Chair, but one that he could have made during the debate had he been called. I am sorry that he and a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House could not be called before I accepted the closure motion.
The House having divided : Ayes 154, Noes 50.
Division No. 84] [10.13 pm
AYES
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas
Ashby, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Beggs, Roy
Bellingham, Henry
Bellotti, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Benyon, W.
Bevan, David Gilroy
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Browne, John (Winchester)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Butterfill, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Cash, William
Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher
Churchill, Mr
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina
Curry, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Devlin, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey
Dorrell, Stephen
Dunn, Bob
Durant, Sir Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Emery, Sir Peter
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Fallon, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Fishburn, John Dudley
Forman, Nigel
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Forth, Eric
Fox, Sir Marcus
Freeman, Roger
Gale, Roger
Gardiner, Sir George
Gill, Christopher
Goodhart, Sir Philip
Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Gregory, Conal
| Next Section
| Home Page |