| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Hughes : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, for two reasons. I always wondered what made the big difference between the last rates bill for Brent and the present arrangements ; now I understand that it was the £140 reduction. Personally, I had thought that it was the bunch of madmen from the Labour party who ran the borough in the old days.
The hon Gentleman has described my figures as jiggery-pokery. That is all very well, but why does he not come clean and give us Labour's figures ? I have challenged the prospective Labour candidate in Harrow, West to do so, but he has not bothered to reply.
Mr. Maxton : The next Labour Member for Harrow, West.
Mr. Hughes : That will come as a terrible shock to him. Labour will not come clean with its figures, so it is bound to describe ours as jiggery -pokery. Labour is simply trying to hide the awfulness that lurks behind its so-called fair rates system All the concern felt in local authorities in London and the south-east--which I well understand--really relates to grant. Two so-called alternative schemes have been suggested. [Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members whose constituencies are some distance from London are not interested in London's problems ; they can continue to talk among themselves.
Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way ?
Mr. Hughes : The hon. Gentleman's constituency is not near London, but yes.
Mr. Enright : It most certainly is not. If the hon. Gentleman, from a London constituency, would pay some attention to the problems that we face in Hemsworth, such as those with RECHAR, which is helping to keep rates in his area down, he would be doing us a service.
Mr. Hughes : I referred to Yorkshire six minutes ago--it has taken the hon. Gentleman that long to work up a head of steam. The problem of RECHAR is that his political friends are stopping the money coming to this country. I refer to Bruce Millan, for instance.
It has been suggested that a London equalisation scheme could be brought back. It could not be ; it was predicated on the business rate. The London discount scheme would just be regional banding in another guise. We need to look at needs multipliers and area cost adjustments, particularly for outer London--they are not very generous this year. We want them improved for the coming year and certainly by the first year of the council tax.
Column 105
We must always remember what people will have to pay. Judged by that, the council tax will be seen as a fair system.Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has been arguing against a regional band for London, thereby costing his constituents about £66 a year, based on average house prices in London.
I had to cut short my attendance at the Hairdressing Council dinner to speak in this debate--[ Hon. Members-- : "A fringe benefit?"] I can only say that the parting was such sweet sorrow.
I am in favour of a regional band for London, based on average house prices. The application of the Government's national bands will mean a loss of grant for London of about £300 million a year, which works out in terms of people's bills at about £60 per adult per year and £100 in some constituencies. Such a loss of grant for local authorities will mean either a higher council tax in London or more cuts in services. The assumption behind the Government's imposition on London of a national band is that Londoners can afford to pay more, which is not true. That assumption does not take into account Londoners' real disposable income. They have high mortgage costs, high rents, high transport costs and high bills of many varieties. House prices are about 45 per cent. higher than the national average, and that should be taken into account.
Londoners will be disadvantaged by the national band. It has been estimated that about 15.7 per cent. of them will be in the top two bands, compared with only 5.6 per cent. elsewhere. In the top three bands the contrast is even more stark : an estimated 55.1 per cent. are in this category in London and only 23.1 per cent. elsewhere. That means that Londoners will face higher council tax bills. The relationship between the council tax and people's ability to pay it was always shaky, and the imposition of a national band on London will make it even weaker. The very idea is absurd.
The end result will be that Londoners and London local authorities will pay millions more each year. That will hit Conservative and Labour areas in London. If the Government go ahead with the legislation, Conservative Members in London and the south-east will find that it will be difficult to reverse after the general election no matter which party is in power. Now is the time to put the case for a special banding system for London. London's case is being ignored by the Government. Its special factors should be recognised and it should have a regional banding system more reflective of its house prices.
Mr. Wilkinson : We have been privileged in the debate to hear some widely contrasting contributions. It is clear that the timetable is quite inadequate to deal with such important matters. I did not support the timetable motion and believe that my decision was right. It is quite preposterous that in 35 minutes we shall reach the end of this debate on banding, a matter of considerable interest to my constituents and, I suspect, to many other constituents in London and the south-east.
The speech by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was trenchant and honest, as one would expect from the hon. Gentleman. It was also clear and to the point, the simple point being that property values are so high in London and the south-east that in all equity there
Column 106
must be some special weighting to account for them. They are by no means compensated for by a disproportionately high level of real disposable income.People in outer London have high commuting costs. Many of them have inordinately high mortgages around their necks and they are finding it extremely difficult to service them in this unusually long period of high interest rates. Instead of taking a Gadarene rush at this important matter of the reform of local government finance, the Government should have taken more time. They could have published a White Paper or set up a commission of inquiry. They should have taken account of all representations and consulted adequately. That would have enabled us to announce in our manifesto that when we were returned to office at the election we would take the most sensible course of action.
I am not expert enough to say which of the banding systems best fits the bill. Valuations should be individually conducted and a proper length of time should be taken over each one. If that were done, there would be far fewer appeals. There should be a weighting system to account for variations in house prices in different parts of the country and within different districts of the same region. The Department of the Environment purports to have knowledge enough at its fingertips to enable a standard spending assessment to be made that takes account of all sorts of individual circumstances in each local authority area. It is not beyond the wit of man to introduce a weighting system to deal with local variations.
In all logic we have already sold the pass by having separate bands for Scotland and Wales, and I am most worried about the current matter. Not only do we have inadequate time to deal with important issues, but there is a real risk that unless the other place does its job properly the measures will reach the statute book fundamentally flawed in terms of banding and the special problem of high property values in London and the south-east.
Unless my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench can produce a new formula to deal with this problem, I shall have to support the new clauses and I shall vote against the Government. I shall consider my position tomorrow on Third Reading in the light of what transpires when the House divides this evening.
9.30 pm
Mrs. Fyfe : There are some who think that there is no fun to be found in local government finance, but they can be proved wrong by this debate. I was at one stage tempted to forgo my chance to contribute to it because of the fascinating speeches of Members representing inner and outer London constituencies as they struggled to find some fairness, justice or logic in the banding system. There are to be different banding systems for Scotland, Wales and England to take account of the fact that they are separate nations. That is all well and good, but if separate nationhood is to be recognised when it comes to banding, the wishes of the separate nations should be heeded when it comes to the taxation that they want. The proposed tax will take no account of regional variations. It is clear that London is out of kilter with much of the rest of England, if not the whole of it.
No hon. Member can pretend to be ignorant of London prices. After all, we all have to live in London in some form of property. My very ordinary London flat costs about half as much again as my flat in Glasgow, which is an
Column 107
infinitely superior building in which to live in every respect. Everybody knows that London prices are out of line with prices in the rest of the country.The same could be said for many a flat in many English provincial cities. I am making a comparison not between Scotland and London but between London and most of the rest of the country. As I have said, London prices are out of line with those that prevail elsewhere. The answer does not lie in saying that London has some advantages that other parts of the country do not enjoy. Surely we should treat the entire country fairly when introducing a local taxation system. That fairness would ensure the awarding of Government grant on the basis of genuine calculated need and not on political prejudice against some local authorities while favouring others. If the Government were concerned to arrive at a proper system, they would accept that fairness was the answer.
In Committee, the Government rejected our fair rates proposals. Our response was, "What about having more bands to take account of the difficulties that arise because of the differences in property prices in London compared with other parts of the country?" That approach was also rejected, because it was getting too close to a rating system, but it would have had some logic, a factor that is entirely outwith the system with which we are now confronted.
In Committee, we asked how properties could be properly valued in the haphazard way that the Government proposed. We were told that properties would be valued a street at a time in England and Wales by estate agents. The Minister of State told us that aerial photography was the answer. He was talking about photographs that happen to be in the file, as it were. He did not propose that new photographs should be taken. I am not sure whether a distinction can be made between the two. The Minister seems to think that one can and that it is important, and I hope that he will explain his position this evening. Perhaps the explanation is that he does not want to have to face the electorate if it thinks that there is a spy in the sky taking photographs of people's properties. He knows that the public are likely to be more tolerant of existing photographs than the taking of new ones and the involvement of estate agents, for example. It is clear that aerial photographs would be useful if they showed, for example, that a property had been extended at the back, but we have still to hear how such photographs would tell anyone how a property had been divided internally. There has been no explanation. As we pointed out, behind the frontage of a street of typical Victorian terraces, there may be properties of widely differing sizes, yet estate agencies may value them alike because they look alike. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that there may be environmental differences even within the same street--one house may be opposite a gas works and another opposite a park. The Minister smiled then, but will he reply to that point? Any member of the public might say to him, "If you had to choose between two properties in one street which were described in an estate agent's window, one of which faced the gas works and the other the park, and both were the same price, which would you choose?" He would not have to think long. It is obvious that what we are saying is common sense which everyone understands.
Column 108
There are bound to be many appeals. The Government have denied that and said that that is not likely, given the number of bands and the wide differences between them. People who have worked for years in assessors' departments know better than that. They expect a large number of appeals to be made.The banding system in Scotland is not adequate to meet property needs. Band H covers properties of £212,000 and upwards. Anyone can glance at the posh Sunday newspapers in Scotland and see the flattering photographs of the properties which get the biggest advertisements. Many are valued at about £150,000. Few people with properties in band H will pay three times as much as people with properties in the lowest band. This system is a tiny improvement on the poll tax. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the poll tax is unjust because a duke pays as much as a dustman. Now, that duke is to pay three times as much, but I do not think that many people will be impressed by that footling improvement.
Mr. Ian Taylor : Not having sat through the hours that the Committee spent upstairs, I am slightly timorous about raising this subject on the Floor of the House but, having listened to speeches by some members of the Committee, I am glad that I did not sit through those hours.
When the council tax was proposed, many of my constituents and I were worried about the impact on the south-east. Yet the more I examine the subject, the more I feel that it would be a mistake to introduce a regional banding system and that it would certainly not address my constituents' concerns. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is on the Treasury Bench, because I was one of those who pressed him in the early days to introduce a higher band. I am pleased that that has happened, and feel that, to a great extent, that has met some of my constituents' concerns. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that people in the top band were "compressed"--I am happy with that word-- in relation to lower bands. The limitation on the multiple which they will pay is sensible.
The point that I made in an intervention is equally important. Through the income and direct tax system, the people who earn the most will contribute more to the funding of local government than they have in the past. The amount raised locally through the council tax will be a relatively low percentage, and will certainly be lower than the percentage paid under the rates. That is important in an area such as mine.
We have had a continual problem in constituencies in the south-east in persuading my hon. Friend the Minister how to treat higher regional costs in relation to standard spending assessments. He has always been willing to meet delegations, but the problems will continue, despite the introduction of the new tax. Nevertheless, I am satisfied with the way in which the county of Surrey has come out in the calculations for the forthcoming year, and I am sure that that will continue under the council tax. I am delighted that in areas such as mine the system of rebates for those on low incomes will continue.
It is important to bear in mind that the differences between various parts of the country are often not as great as those within a particular constituency and we should consider that issue in our deliberations on the council tax. The ability to treat local variations is very important, especially in the current process of valuations, and I hope
Column 109
that the amenity and other values of various local residences will be taken into account. Again, that is more in the interests of my constituents than the imposition of a regional system.A regional banding system would contain enormous anomalies. I represent a constituency outside London and I am glad that no part of it was under the old Greater London council. If the royal borough of Kingston will take its dirty hands off houses in Long Ditton which it is now trying to claim under the Boundary Commission, no part of my constituency will ever be within boundaries of the old or any new GLC.
As the Minister rightly said in a statement on 20 November, there is no doubt that
"in Kingston-Upon-Thames a couple in a four bedroomed house would pay £88 less than their equivalents in next door Elmbridge", part of which is in my constituency. That would be the effect of the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Such a difference is not acceptable. They are not the issues that we should discuss when considering the way in which the council tax will be implemented. It is important that a house worth, say, £200,000 should have the same bill throughout the country for a given level of services. I am not interested in the situation in Wales or Scotland as they have their own systems of delegated government and their own systems of finance. [Interruption.] I would not presume to speak on behalf of any Members of Parliament from Scotland. Therefore, I am not sure that I would wish them to presume to speak on my behalf.
As a Member of Parliament for a constituency in the south-east, I believe that the main problems that I identified in the council tax and the way in which it would be implemented have been met by my colleagues on the Front Bench. The problems were of immense concern to my constituents. I have gradually been able to convince them that the issues that I have raised this evening--such as the new band of £320,000--were the correct ones to be resolved.
When the council tax comes to be implemented, I beg my colleagues on the Front Bench to remember that we do not want any last-minute changes, such as extra help for London. Many of my constituents believe that Londoners get a good deal in many ways, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). That may not necessarily be appreciated by hon. Members whose constituencies are in London, but it is certainly appreciated by hon. Members whose constituencies border on London.
The key issue for any Government is to ensure that local councils do not overspend and the key issue for any local Member of Parliament is to ensure that the efficiency with which councils deliver services is of the highest quality. I believe that we can achieve that through Conservative councils across the south-east and I oppose the system of regional banding.
Mr. Portillo : My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has failed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but let it stand on the record that he has pursued privately with Ministers the interests of his constituents most assiduously.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has pursued his constituents' interests by urging Ministers to visit the Isles of Scilly, which I had the pleasure of doing
Column 110
recently. He believes that the problems of the Isles of Scilly, which have high property prices due to people coming in from outside, are unique. I am not sure that they are unique, but we are aware of them.I can tell my hon. Friend that, where a number of properties are owned by people from outside the islands and if those properties are second homes, the fact that only half of the tax will be payable by those taxpayers will be taken into account in the assessment of the tax base of the authority. That will, of course, be reflected in the amount of grant that the Isles of Scilly can receive. I hope that that will be some consolation to him.
I say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) that ministers of religion and the Churches in general have made representations. Some of the Churches have suggested that they should be able to pay the council taxes of ministers of religion en bloc and then divide that by equal amounts among the ministers of religion so that people would not pay more for living in an especially large vicarage. We shall be interested in pursuing that point with them. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is meant to be the finance spokesman for his party, showed a 100 per cent. misunderstanding of the system when he said that his constituents would look across to Scotland and see there a more favourable banding system. The system in Scotland is less favourable in that people will reach the higher band at a lower value of property, because there are more people in the lowest bands. The important point is that the amount that is contributed from local government finance in Scotland is less, and the amount contributed from local taxation in Wales is less again. Different bandings in those different places are therefore appropriate.
9.45 pm
A £50,000 house in Scotland would be in band D, but it would be in band B in England. However, the house in Scotland would pay £270, and the one in England would pay £311 because of the difference in the amount that is raised locally.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Esher (Mr. Taylor) were right to point out the difficulties of a regional banding system. How right they were to point out that it is not only in the south- east that there are expensive properties, and that there are often variations within regions which are as striking and as dramatic as the variations between them.
If we gave discounts in London, that would be unfair. It would mean that in every band there would be lower bills for a standard level of service. It would mean, for example, that in the lowest band, in London, there would be lower bills for a standard level of service than there were anywhere else. It would mean that we would sweep to one side the fact that the variations within London are as dramatic as the variations between London and other places.
Within one borough, between Mayfair and Paddington, for example, the difference in property prices is enormous. From the east of London to the west, the difference is enormous. I ask, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) whether it would be fair to give all Londoners a discount on that basis and for the people of London, uniquely, to pay less for their services in the lowest band while no one else had that benefit.
Column 111
Mr. Wilkinson : Will my hon. Friend give way?I argued in a letter to my hon. Friends that there are higher disposable incomes in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who spoke in a previous debate, was kind enough to put part of that letter on the record.
There used to be a rateable value discount in London, and I know that some of my hon. Friends hanker to go back to that. In the proposed council tax, we have put in place the idea that the amounts of tax that are paid should be compressed. We propose that only three times as much should be payable by those who live in the most valuable properties as by those in the least valuable properties in any area. The effect of the compression of ratios is expecially helpful to all the places, whether London or the Isles of Scilly, where property prices are unusually high.
I sometimes think that my hon. Friends have not fully recognised the effect of that compression of the tax rates, although clearly my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, when he began to compare the council tax bills that are in prospect with the very much higher rates bills that used to be paid by his constituents and, even more, by the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), he was firmly on to the point that the council tax achieves what is necessary--that is, higher bills for people who live in higher-valued properties, but not bills that are disproportionate or excessive, such as we had under the rating system and such as those to which the Labour party wishes us to return. Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) rose
Mr. Portillo : I am afraid that we are under a time limit. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was less than straightforward with us this evening. He told us that he was committed to a system of fairness. As far as I am aware, the Labour party is not committed to a system of regional banding. The Labour party is certainly committed to the principle of unlimited tax bills in respect of the more expensive properties, and longs for a return to the sort of envy tax that we had under the rating system, whereby people in more expensive properties-- whether they are widows or people living on their own and irrespective of whether or not they have high incomes--are made to pay in relation to the value of their properties.
Not only does the Labour party propose an unlimited tax ; it proposes an additional tier of government at regional level, and says that that regional tier of government should be able to raise income tax. God help us if we ever have the Labour party imposing regional income tax and unlimited bills on higher valued properties and--what is more--if we have no capping on local authorities, so that any authority is free to set whatever level of taxation it chooses. The hon Member for Brightside was very cross about the valuation exercise that we propose to conduct. He was cross that we intended to save £100 million on the valuation process because he loves public spending ; anything that is good value for money is a disappointment to him. Just as he loves public spending, so he hates the private sector. Therefore, the idea that valuers should be
Column 112
chosen from the private sector to conduct the valuation and so save the taxpayer money is anathema to him, and has excited him more than somewhat.The hon. Gentleman caricatured the valuation process as broad-brush. It will not be broad-brush. It will take account of local factors and of the difference between properties that overlook the park and properties next to the disco. By using private sector valuers who have local knowledge, we shall make it possible for such factors to be taken into account, to achieve value for money and to conduct the process quickly. That means that, for the Conservatives, the introduction of a new system of taxation in 1993 is a reality, whereas for the Labour party it is cloud cuckoo land, and Labour Members know that perfectly well.
The hon. Member for Brightside was less than straightforward with the people of Barnet. I can tell him that they will not be consoled by his promise that they would not all be in the same band if they knew the truth, which is that he would sting them for vast sums of the sort that were dragged out of people under the rating system--the sums which brought the rates system down and which at one stage led his party and himself to denounce the rating system as unfair. We stuck to the belief that that system was unfair whereas the Opposition have jettisoned it.
Let there be no doubt about it : the system that the Labour party proposes is massively unfair. The hon. Member for Brightside can only say that, for a property worth five times as much, the Bill would not be five times as high, just as he told us before that the number of Labour Members advocating non-payment was not 30. He cannot tell us how many times it was, and he cannot tell us how many times greater the bill would be in Barnet. He is the "not 30, not five" shadow spokesman. He cannot produce more precise figures than that. The tax that we propose is partly a property tax and partly a personal tax, and we believe that the property element should be a tax on the enjoyment of property, which can only be related to the actual value of property. We propose a fair system, with discounts to single people, students and student nurses and rebates for people on low incomes. We propose a comprehensible system and one that recognises that, while there should be a relationship to the value of the property, there should also be a compressing of the tax bands so that we ask more of people in higher-valued properties, but do not subject them to the excessive bills to which the Labour party would have us return. For all those reasons, I ask my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.
Mr. Murphy : Not so long ago, the Minister spoke with equal passion about the merits of the poll tax. Even he has now accepted that the poll tax in Britain and Wales was an abject and complete failure because it was unfair and was unrelated to people's ability to pay. Worse still, from the Government's point of view, it was perceived by the majority of the people as being unfair and that, essentially, was its downfall.
Earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said that the question of valuation bands was not an issue. What is an issue, of course, is the unfairness of any local government tax. The tax that the Government introduced three years ago was above all unfair and unrelated to people's ability to pay. With its banding and valuation lists, the council tax is equally
Column 113
unfair. I am afraid that the credibility of local government will be put at risk because of the constant changes in local government finances that have occurred over the past few months and years. The eight bands that the Government have proposed for Wales are disproportionate. The highest band pays only three times more than the lowest band--although one property may be worth £240,000 compared with £30,000. We are proposing a 14-band system for Wales that reflects the ability to pay and is more closely linked to people's income. More importantly, it also follows the changeability of the housing market in England and Wales. The only fair answer to the question of valuation is that each property should be individually valued. That is the fairest way.In Britain, all the professional bodies, including the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the Institute of Rating and Valuation, have all said that the valuation and banding system proposed by the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is wrong. All the local authorities in Wales have said that the bands are unfair and unjust. That view was echoed by the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts. They specifically wanted a band lower than the £30,000 band and more bands between £90,000 and £120,000 and above £240,000.
What logic and fairness is there in the present system which doubles from £120,000 to £240,000 in respect of the commencement point of the top band in Wales while only increasing the range of payment by one fifth between the bottom and the top bands? There is nothing logical or fair in that ludicrous system.
The councils in Wales asked the Government to undertake a study of the relationship between capital values in Wales and household gross and disposable incomes. That study could easily have been carried out with the assistance--if they had agreed--of the Building Societies Association, the Inland Revenue and the valuation office. They could have compared purchase prices, incomes, deposits and capital values. However, the Government decided to ignore the wishes and fears of the local authorities in Wales and elsewhere.
The Welsh Office refused to carry out the studies purely for electoral and dogmatic reasons. The Government still maintain the view that they held when the poll tax was introduced. The council tax is no different. Under both taxes, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.
There are no practical problems with the introduction of 14 bands in Wales. There would be no increase in the workload of local authorities and there would be no delay in introducing a new system. The system would be fairer and there would be fewer appeals. The poll tax failed essentially because of its unfairness. It also failed because of the cost to people of this country. In Wales alone, £100 million was squandered on the poll tax to set it up, to maintain it, and to sweeten it. That was a disgraceful squandering and waste of public money. The Government might as well have dumped £100 million in the Bristol channel for what good it did to the people of Wales. The Prime Minister said that the poll tax was bad because of its uncollectability. The same can be said of the council tax. As the Government prefer to listen to their party managers rather than to local authorities, they are failing
Column 114
to listen with regard to the council tax. As a consequence, they will fail to win the general election. I urge the House to support new clause 9 and the consequent amendments.Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :
The House divided : Ayes 233, Noes 329.
Division No. 28] [9.58 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Allen, Graham
Alton, David
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashton, Joe
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Beckett, Margaret
Beith, A. J.
Bell, Stuart
Bellotti, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Benton, Joseph
Bermingham, Gerald
Blair, Tony
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Boyes, Roland
Bradley, Keith
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Canavan, Dennis
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Carr, Michael
Cartwright, John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clay, Bob
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Cox, Tom
Crowther, Stan
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Dr John
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Doran, Frank
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Eadie, Alexander
Eastham, Ken
Edwards, Huw
Enright, Derek
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Fatchett, Derek
Faulds, Andrew
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fisher, Mark
Flannery, Martin
Flynn, Paul
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Foster, Derek
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
Galbraith, Sam
Galloway, George
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
George, Bruce
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mildred
Gould, Bryan
Graham, Thomas
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Hardy, Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Henderson, Doug
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Home Robertson, John
Hood, Jimmy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Hoyle, Doug
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Illsley, Eric
Ingram, Adam
Janner, Greville
Johnston, Sir Russell
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Kennedy, Charles
Kilfoyle, Peter
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Kirkwood, Archy
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Lambie, David
Lamond, James
Leighton, Ron
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Lewis, Terry
Litherland, Robert
Livingstone, Ken
Livsey, Richard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
McAllion, John
McAvoy, Thomas
Macdonald, Calum A.
| Next Section
| Home Page |