House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 May 1991

Column 366

That simply does not happen in the experience of many of my constituents.

About two years ago, over 1,800 shipyard workers and dockers applied for disability benefit in respect of the industrial injuries of vibration white finger, industrial deafness and other ailments. Many of those men are still waiting for the claims to be processed. The Department of Social Security in Stranraer, Greenock and Port Glasgow has treated those men with disgraceful insensitivity. Yet south of the border in the Sunderland area of the north-east of England, such claims have been dealt with much more speedily, efficiently and, dare I say it, generously. If people in the north-east of England can be treated in that way, the claimants on the lower Clyde should be treated with equal compassion and sensitivity. I hope that the Minister will pass my remarks on to his ministerial colleagues.

9.22 pm

Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East) : I am sure that the whole House will wish to know that United won the European cup winners cup with a score of 2 : 1. I hope that that is right. I say that to get my speech off to a popular start.

The Chief Secretary got off to a traditionally raffish start to his address by referring to the timing of our debate. I was a little perplexed by that. In 1987, we had the debate on expenditure plans in February. We had the same debate in 1988 in February. In 1989, it was in February. In 1990, it was in February. This year, we are having the debate on 15 May.

I wonder why the Government delayed the debate. The suspicion among Opposition Members was that some new announcement, perhaps on training, was planned to claw back the Government's disreputable public expenditure position. But the Government have not managed to make such an announcement. As a substitute, they have had to settle for second best. They have scheduled today's debate on the eve of the Labour victory in Monmouth. But, of course, it was not their intention to give us a chance to praise ourselves before the voters went to the polls. The intention was that today's debate should act as the culmination of a 10-day campaign which the Conservative party has conducted on the Labour party's public expenditure and tax policies.

Mr. Oppenheim : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown : I shall give way in a moment.

The response that met the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) must be attributed to absolute hysteria, which was clearly induced by fear. I shall now give way to an hon. Gentleman who has more to fear than most.

Mr. Oppenheim : I am quaking in my shoes. The hon. Gentleman should not place his bets on the election results yet. Some of his colleagues lost money at the last election by predicting that I would lose my seat.

Will the hon. Gentleman clear up a point that was not adequately explained during earlier exchanges? Last year, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) told the House clearly and categorically that a future Labour Government would have only two spending priorities pensions and child benefit. Since then, a succession of Labour Front Bench spokesmen have trooped through the Chamber and said that employment, training, trade and

Column 367

industry, health and overseas development would also be priorities. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House, clearly and unequivocally, who is right?

Mr. Brown : My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South is undoubtedly right on matters of public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman will see shortly, once we are in government, that the Labour party Treasury team intend to keep a firm grip on public expenditure, for reasons that are perfectly obvious to everyone who has taken part in this debate so far.

Mr. Maude : Is the hon. Gentleman saying, therefore, that all those other Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are wrong?

Mr. Brown : That is absolute nonsense. When we ask the Government what the basic rate of income tax will be in the Chancellor's next Budget, they say that that is a stupid question. Yet when a shadow Minister is at the Dispatch Box, they expect him to spell out the Labour party's entire expenditure programme and to say precisely what priority will be given to which commitment. The Labour party has set out honestly and candidly its taxation policies and the areas of priority.

Mr. Maude : I asked a fair question. The hon. Gentleman has just said that the hon. Member for Derby, South was right when she said that there were only two priorities. I simply asked whether he is saying that all the other Front-Bench spokesmen were wrong to claim that there were a range of other priorities.

Mr. Brown : The Financial Secretary is going from bad to worse but, fortunately, his interventions will shorten his time, not mine. I say that in case anyone thinks that I am being foolishly generous in allowing him to intervene. He is relying on the misrepresentation of one of his hon. Friends.

Misrepresentation is becoming a stock in trade for the Financial Secretary. On the BBC "One O'Clock News" on 8 May, he said : "2 per cent.--Labour Governments don't get that growth--the sort of growth we had in the 1980s".

That turns out to be completely wrong. First, from 1964 to 1969 under a Labour Government, the British economy grew at the rate of 2.8 per cent. a year ; under Labour from 1974 to 1979, despite the quadrupling of world oil prices, the economy grew at the rate of 2 per cent. Secondly, in the 12 years of Conservative party rule, and despite the £100 billion-worth of oil revenues available to the Government, the economy has grown at only 1.75 per cent. a year--we are indebted to the Economic Secretary for that figure. Every Labour Government since the second world war has had higher average annual growth rates than their Conservative counterparts. It is hopeless for the Financial Secretary to suggest otherwise.

However, the Financial Secretary has one excuse--the Prime Minister has also been at it. I do not know what has happened to the modern Conservative party. They have gone from the iron lady to the tin man, from Boadicea to Frank Spencer. On 9 May, the Prime Minister said : "The reality is that the Labour party would never deliver any growth whatsoever to fund increased public expenditure. It never has and never would and any suggestion that it would is sheer wish fantasy."

Column 368

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : What is "wish fantasy"?

Mr. Brown : I do not know. My hon. Friend will have to ask the Prime Minister--it would be a good question at Prime Minister's Question Time.

The Prime Minister continued :

"The extra £20 billion that Labour promises is spending that it could never deliver out of growth which it has never previously provided when in government."--[ Official Report, 9 May 1991 ; Vol. 190, c. 820, 822.]

That is factually inaccurate. We are happy to argue the issues with Conservative Members in a civilised way, but not on the basis of rant, which is all that is on offer.

We have said that we shall remove the ceiling on employees' national insurance contributions, which will affect people earning more than £20,000 a year. We have told the electorate that we intend to do that. Conservative Members do not seem to be aware of the phrase "marginal tax rates" and act as though the effect filters down to every penny an individual earns. We have given our statement, and the electorate will contrast that with a Conservative party that did not say that it would raise employees' national insurance contributions in 1981 by 2.5 per cent., not just for top rate earners but every national insurance contributor in the country.

Time is working against me in this debate. A number of Opposition Members made significant contributions, and one theme that came through more strongly than any other was Opposition Members' concern for the national health service. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) rightly cited individual cases.

I shall describe an individual case, not just because it is important in itself, but because it is significant in relation to what is happening in the national health service. At the end of last week, I was telephoned by my general practitioner. One of my doctor's patients is an 83-year-old widow who has had a bowel tumour and a colostomy. She has been in hospital for radiotherapy but, sadly, the tumour is still there. She suffers from cataracts, cannot read, and is taking morphine to relieve the pain. The medical judgment of her medical practitioner is that she should be given a course of radiotherapy as an in-patient in Newcastle general hospital to try to alleviate the condition or at least relieve the pain.

At first, her specialist agreed that she would be given an appointment in ten days' time. But then the appointment was withdrawn because Newcastle general hospital--which is still operated by the health authority ; it has not opted out--has decided that no patients from Newcastle will be admitted to Newcastle hospital for radiotherapy and treated as in-patients. The reason for that has nothing to do with clinical judgment ; it would be impossible to make such a decision based on clinical judgment in advance of seeing the patient. The reasons for the decision are organisational and financial.

The radiotherapy service has lost 15 beds, but demand for the service has increased. In order to provide a service to the entire region, the hospital has contractual arrangements with neighbouring authorities that provide an income for Newcastle health authority, because the money has to follow the patient. The problem is that such money will not follow patients in Newcastle, because the health authority has to pay money to itself and it does not intend to do so. Therefore, there is no money to follow a citizen in Newcastle--just misery.

Column 369

I shall not substitute my political judgment for that of a medical practitioner. The House will be relieved to know that my constituent has been given treatment. When I got in touch with the hospital and said that I intended to raise the matter in the House, it decided that her condition had deteriorated and that she now qualified for clinical treatment. Members of Parliament representing all parts of the country will be put in the impossible position of having to act as welfare officers, putting representations to hospital managements to ensure that elderly people get the sort of treatment that they should be entitled to in the first place.

Mr. Ian Stewart rose--

Mr. Brown : I shall finish my point, and then give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

The citizens of Newcastle are being told that none of them will be treated as in-patients. This might leave the local health authority in the absurd position of having to buy a safe house in Wallsend, over the border, and to move people who need in-patient treatment out of the district so that they can get into their own hospitals. I do not say that that would actually happen. Such an arrangement would be absurd, but it would be compatible with the market forces that the Conservatives encourage. The situation is outrageous. I cannot believe that this country would refuse an 83-year-old woman in such circumstances in-patient treatment under the NHS.

Mr. Ian Stewart : I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's constituency case, but I am glad that he has been able to play a part in ensuring that the lady gets her treatment. If he feels so strongly about the funding of the NHS, will he tell us by how much his party would increase expenditure on it above the figures in the White Paper?

Mr. Brown : Conservative Members seem to think that the health service is already properly funded. None of them has suggested otherwise. Indeed, the implication of tonight's motion is that the Conservative party's priority is tax cuts, not further public expenditure. The Opposition amendment says that the resources available from growth and from the tax changes that we have honestly announced to the electorate--the Conservative party never did that--should be used for our spending priorities, which embrace the NHS.

The right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) should not be surprised that Labour Members feel so strongly about the NHS. During my visit to Monmouth, I found, as did other Opposition Members, that the health service was the biggest single issue that was raised. If Conservative Members are not willing to take that from me tonight, they will hear it from the electorate in the Monmouth by-election tomorrow.

Conservative Members who have spoken in the debate have concentrated on the Labour party's public expenditure and taxation plans. Despite the fact that the Governments public expenditure plans are the subject of the motion, Conservative Members did not seem to want to discuss them, or the documents in which they are set out. They preferred to discuss fictional versions of British history when the Labour party was in power--perhaps I should call that period current affairs rather than history--and hysterical versions of what they think will happen

Column 370

under the next Labour government. References to present Government policy seemed almost forbidden. They were not interested in that. The obvious explanation for that is that, if the Government intend to reduce direct taxation--that has been their theme since 1979--the money has to be found from somewhere. We know where that money will be found : the Conservative party will adopt the same solution as it did in 1981, despite having pledged in 1979 to do no such thing. It is the same solution that the Government adopted to get themselves out of the mess that they got into with the poll tax. They increased value added tax in 1981 and increased it again by 2.5 per cent. in this year's Budget. If Conservatives seriously intend further to reduce direct taxation they will further increase indirect taxation. I have heard no convincing denial of the Conservative party's secret plan to increase VAT. I shall give way if any Conservative Member wishes to make a straight denial. That is a generous offer, but it has not been taken up. I am surprised and a little disappointed by that. Surely somebody could manage at least a ritual denial of the sort that we had in 1979, when the then shadow Chancellor said that such an allegation by the Labour party was a wicked lie. He said that the Conservatives had no intention whatever of doubling VAT. It could be argued that he did not double it, and such a semantic point would remove some of the difficulty, but not all of it.

The debate about the Labour party's public spending and taxation policies was started about 10 days ago in the Daily Express by the Chief Secretary. At that time, Labour and the Conservatives were said to be running neck and neck in the opinion polls on Monmouth. Now Labour is well ahead in those polls, and a victory tomorrow in Monmouth is staring us in the face. If the Chief Secretary continues to attack us like that, the Opposition will soon be sitting on the Government side, and the Conservatives will be sitting over here. 9.41 pm

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude) : Traditionally, this debate enables the House to do two things. First, it is an important annual episode in the execution of the House's role in scrutinising Government spending. It also enables the House to probe policies on public spending.

My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) spoke about the format of the reports that are before the House. In reply to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the House is powerless in controlling and scrutinising public spending. It has an important role and, traditionally, the House has rightly taken it seriously. My hon. Friend said that he wished that the House had the same resources as the United States Congress. However, the size of America's budget deficit does not inspire a great deal of confidence in the scrutiny and control of public spending on the other side of the Atlantic.

The way in which the Government report to the House has developed very much in consultation with Select Committees, and has been guided by what those Committees have sought. We shall continue to consult, amend and improve the form of financial reporting to reflect the desires of the House.

The second function is to enable each side to probe policies, the way in which money is raised and spent, and

Column 371

the important division in philosophy between the Government and the Opposition. As the debate has illustrated, it sometimes seems that Labour's approach to public sector spending is rather like feeding a slot machine. They seem to think it inevitable that the more coins they put in at the top the more chocolate bars will emerge at the bottom. It does not quite work like that, especially when Labour is in power either in government or in councils. In such cases the slot machine becomes rather like a fruit machine, a one-armed bandit, because most of the money remains inside. That is not surprising because, after all, Labour is in hock to the public sector unions. Yesterday, it was pointed out in the House--I do not think that it has been refuted--that a third of the parliamentary Labour party is sponsored by the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees. I am not suggesting that that inevitably colours the attitudes of Labour Members--

Mr. Nicholas Brown : I suspect the Financial Secretary's figures are just wrong. It is highly unlikely that COHSE and NUPE sponsor a third of the parliamentary Labour party.

Mr. Maude : I am reassured to hear that, but we shall be interested to hear the refutation. The suggestion was made in the House yesterday and it has not been refuted. Certainly, the majority of the parliamentary Labour party behave as though they were sponsored by COHSE and NUPE. That is why one can be morally certain that a Labour Government would ensure that the extra money raised from taxpayers will stick in the pockets of those who work in the state bureaucracies, instead of being translated into better services for citizens.

That is what we are seeking to change. We aim to make the public sector-- central and local government, nationalised industries and the health service--work more efficiently so that the money supplied by the citizens as the taxpayer is translated into ever better services for the citizen as the user of them. The Prime Minister has initiated the most radical overhaul ever of the public sector, applying private sector market disciplines right across the board. [Interruption.] Let us hear what the Labour party has to say. We shall apply market disciplines, giving choice to the users of services and introducing competition wherever possible.

Mr. Graham : Will the Minister give an assurance to the elderly disabled woman whom I spoke to tonight that in future, instead of taking five days to get her wheelchair fixed, it will take one day at the most?

Mr. Maude : I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are determined that the provision of public services will get better. We do not share the hon. Gentleman's blithe and dogmatic assumption that the only way to improve public sector services is by putting ever more money into them. That is why we have introduced wide-ranging reforms across the public sector and we shall continue to do that.

Introducing a commercial attitude to the public sector does not mean that everything will be sacrificed to short-term profit. The private sector does not flourish or create customer loyalty by treating its clients badly. It flourishes and creates loyalty because people have a

Column 372

choice. If they do not like what they are given, they can go elsewhere. Every change that has been introduced into the public sector has been aimed at delivering quality services.

Let us consider the introduction of executive agencies-- next steps' agencies--which are designed to improve efficiency and to give managers more control and more powers to enable their organisations to deliver better services. Let us consider one or two examples, even though I accept they are not in the mainstream of the provision of public services. The process has only just begun and there is a long way to go. It will be interesting to see whether the Labour party supports the process.

For example, in Companies House productivity rose by 6 per cent. and real unit costs fell by 5 per cent. in the first year that it was a next steps' agency. The average time taken to process documents was 12 days compared with 25 days in the previous year. In the vehicles inspectorate agency, cost efficiency in its four main functions improved by 4.5 per cent. against a target of 3.7 per cent. In Her Majesty's Stationery Office value- for-money improvements of 8.6 per cent., 12.6 per cent. and 12 per cent. have been achieved in its different functions. That is just an example of the sort of benefit that can be gained for the public sector and for the citizens, who will get the services that they expect the Government and the public sector to provide by making the money supplied by the taxpayer buy ever better services for the citizen.

Mr. Battle : One of the agencies is the Employment Service. How does reducing the number of employment offices from 2,000 to 1,000 increase the service as unemployment is obviously increasing ? How is that a saving ?

Mr. Maude : By the Employment Service becoming more efficient in the way in which it provides services for consumers ; by ensuring that money goes further--which it does.

As regards the national health service, it is a pity that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) did not give an answer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart), who made an outstanding speech. The Labour party has argued repeatedly that the only thing wrong with the health service is that it does not have enough money in it. In 1987, the Labour party argued that it was underfunded and that it needed to be funded to the extent of 3 per cent. real growth per year. We have increased its real spending by 3.5 per cent. a year, but the Labour party says that it is still underfunded and that that is the only thing wrong with it. Labour cannot admit that there might be anything wrong with the way in which the NHS turns that money into patient care. We have steadily introduced a series of reforms into the NHS which are specifically designed to ensure that patient care increases and becomes ever better.

What about competitive tendering, which has provided savings of £120 million--money which has all gone into patient care? The Labour party says that it would abolish it, which means that £120 million would be taken out of patient care. Is that an example of how to make the health service provide better services for patients? Will the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East say that he is not going to get rid of competitive tendering?

Mr. Nicholas Brown : I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments about efficiency. As he studies

Column 373

these matters, I expect that he will have seen the report of the National Audit Office, which will tell him that a third of all the costs consumed by the social fund are spent on administration. Is that an example of Conservative efficiency?

Mr. Maude : I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman did not answer the question which we put to him about whether he would continue with competitive tendering in the health service, which has delivered better care for patients. Or is the Labour party so constrained by COHSE and NUPE that it is not able to contemplate the continuation of a policy which has yielded so many benefits for patients?

Direct care staff have increased from 59 per cent. of all staff in the health service to 67 per cent., which means more people in the health service are concerned with the direct provision of patient care. The number of doctors and nurses has increased dramatically--53, 000 more nurses and midwives and 8,000 more doctors and dentists. That has been possible because the health service operates ever more efficiently and provides ever more treatment for ever more people. Every year, the health service has treated more people, more effectively.

Another example are the educational reforms, to loosen the control of bureaucracy and to give more control to parents. Grant-maintained schools, local management of schools and open enrolment are all designed to give more power to parents to insist that schools provide better schooling for their children. The money that they put in as charge payers and taxpayers comes out in better schooling for their children.

What is Labour's response to those reforms, which are designed to provide better care and better schooling? What did the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) say about grant-maintained schools? "On day one, we'll stop it. We'll turn the clock back," he said. As every day goes by the Labour party reveals itself as the real party of reaction, the party which wants to turn the clock back, the party which cannot conceive of the fact that local authority services can be provided by anything other than local authorities. All the public sector services have to be provided by people employed by the state. Services have to be provided by bureaucracy. The Opposition hate anything that gives to patients and parents real choice-- the choice to control their destiny and what happens to them--because that takes people out of the power of the state and gives them independence and choice. The Opposition cannot stand that.

As for local authorities contracting out, just look at the city of Westminster. It has saved £4.1 million a year.

Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East) : The hon. Gentleman referred to contracting out in hospitals. In my constituency, 400 employees of the Monklands district general hospital recently had their employment terminated because of contracting out. The company that now provides the services is offering the people whom it employs poorer wages and different hours but, most significant of all, no superannuation whatsoever. Does the Minister think that that is right?

Mr. Maude : The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have better demonstrated where his real loyalties lie. They lie not with the patients who seek care in hospitals

Column 374

but with those people who are employed by the state. He could not better have demonstrated why we object to his approach to the national health service.

Mr. Smith : And the Minister could not more clearly have demonstrated where the Government's loyalties lie. I am proud to represent people in my constituency who work in my local hospital. It is absurd and disgraceful that they should lose their jobs and be offered other jobs without the possibility of superannuation. The Minister is on the side of employers who deny rights to my constituents.

Mr. Maude : The fact is that the Government are on the side of the patients who are treated in hospitals and of patients who are treated by general practitioners. We are on the side of parents who send their children to the schools of their choice. We are not on the side of the state and of the public sector unions who still hold the Labour party in thrall. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should be a little more careful about the way in which he opens up his party to criticism.

During the debate we have asked the Labour party a lot of questions but we have had precious few answers. During my right hon. and learned Friend's speech this afternoon I counted 13 questions to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). She half-answered two of them. That seems to me to leave a deficit of 11. We are still waiting to hear what the answers are. I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East another opportunity to let us know the answers to those questions.

What is the answer to the question about priorities? Does Beckett's law still apply, or do all the other Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen have authority to offer top priorities, key priorities, overriding priorities? What are the priorities? What would a Labour Government spend their money on?

Mr. Boateng rose --

Mr. Maude : Is the hon. Gentleman going to intervene and tell us what the priorities are, or is he, as the hon. Member for Derby, South said earlier, going to give us the answers later? I suspect that they will be given much later. They will certainly not come when the Labour party is in government because it will never have the chance to be in government.

How will the Labour party fill the gap left by the proceeds of privatisation, forgone by its dogma? How will it raise the extra £5 billion? Will it mean an additional 2.5p on income tax? Will it mean £5 billion off spending? Will it mean borrowing extra money--a burden on future taxpayers? When shall we get the answers to those questions? What about the Leader of the Opposition's additional £20 billion? Does that come out of the growth that we have already provided for and already assumed for our services? When will there be answers to these questions?

The fact is that Labour are so obsessed with input that they don their motley as they go round the country, throwing around commitments to spending here, buying off an interest group there, and then they put on their dark suits to persuade the public that they do not really mean it. The fact is that we have seen enough of Labour promises. Labour are rattled, rumbled and wrong. They have made their promises, which are like pie-crust ; they are made to be broken. People will not believe them.

Column 375

Question put , That the amendment be made :- -

The House divided : Ayes 177, Noes 298.

Division No. 144] [10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Armstrong, Hilary

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Ashton, Joe

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Battle, John

Beckett, Margaret

Beith, A. J.

Bell, Stuart

Bellotti, David

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Bermingham, Gerald

Blair, Tony

Blunkett, David

Boateng, Paul

Boyes, Roland

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Buckley, George J.

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Cartwright, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Cohen, Harry

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Dr John

Dalyell, Tam

Darling, Alistair

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Dobson, Frank

Doran, Frank

Douglas, Dick

Duffy, A. E. P.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Eadie, Alexander

Eastham, Ken

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Fatchett, Derek

Fearn, Ronald

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Flannery, Martin

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Foster, Derek

Foulkes, George

Fraser, John

Fyfe, Maria

Galloway, George

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

George, Bruce

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mildred

Gould, Bryan

Graham, Thomas

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Henderson, Doug

Hinchliffe, David

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Home Robertson, John

Hood, Jimmy

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Howells, Geraint

Next Section

Home Page