House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Feb 1992

Column 766

Gateway and Bank. The disruption is bad because it is daily. The only thing that is regular, reliable and predictable is the extent of the disruption.

The DLR's reputation is now appalling, but I fear that it is justifiable. What concerns me most is that it is bad for the long-term success of docklands, to which I am strongly committed, and it undermines all the good work of the developers, of the Government and of the others involved in the massive enterprise. I say yes to the extension, but only if the management are paid by results directly related to the DLR's reliability and punctuality, which is the only incentive to bring about radical improvements in the operation of any newly extended system. The DLR is superb in concept, but disgraceful in its management.

I urge the promoters to take note of those serious points. I have described what we have had to put up with over the past four years. If the system is extended, as I believe that it should be, it is vital that the quality of the service is dramatically improved. The people of that part of London deserve better from the management of the DLR.

9.19 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) is right that, in many ways, the docklands light railway has been a disaster-- one might even say an unmitigated disaster. The blame for that rests with the Government because it was the Government who built it on the cheap. It is an example of market forces at work and of what happens when there is a lack of proper planning in building such a system and in seeking to provide a good transport infrastructure for the area. For 13 wasted years, this Government have let market forces run the show.

Matters will not be made better if we allow the LDDC to take over. The LDDC eulogised the system when it first appeared but the LDDC is not--and nor has it ever been--a transport operator. It will control the railway only as a first step towards privatisation. I think that the disaster will continue as a result of the Government's chosen course.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on a superb constituency speech. When the general election comes--perhaps on 9 April--she will be returned with a handsome and increased majority. The people of Bow and Poplar should be told how she defended their interests in the House when the Government, LRT and the LDDC wanted to walk all over them. No doubt my hon. Friend will see off the challenge from the Liberals quite comfortably. It is interesting that they have not been here at all. I suspect that, if the Bill and the interests of the people of Bow and Poplar were up before the House for discussion again in future, they would not be here to defend the area's interests.

Mr. Skinner : I have been here for a while and I have been looking for the Liberal Democrats, as they call themselves nowadays. It is just conceivable that they are having a caucus meeting to change their name again. It is just possible, with an election coming up. They have had their name for a year and a half--it is the longest lasting name that they have had since the last general election. Mr. Speaker should be told about this matter because, when they change their name, the question arises whether they

Column 767

should receive what is called the Short money which they get on the basis of their name at the previous general election.

It is also possible that the Liberal Democrats are not interested in railways and that what they are interested in is getting round Paddy Backdown--I nearly said something else--otherwise known as Captain Mainwaring so that this little Dad's Army can have a caucus meeting to discuss what to do at the general election. They have all these high-flown ideas ; we shall probably see them on telly tomorrow. I can see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are beginning to think, "What has this got to do with the docklands light railway?" I can understand that, but I think that you will agree that railways are an environmental issue. They are an issue that is supposed to be for the anoraked people--the ones with green wellies who eat brown rice--but they are nowhere to be found. What can they expect when they are being led by him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman had a good run but, as he admitted, what he said had nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Cohen : I can well imagine the Liberal Democrats having a caucus meeting about their name because they certainly have no policies worth talking about. They have shown us that they are not interested in the environment and in public transport.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, the Labour party welcomes investment in new public transport infrastructure. Such investment has been grossly lacking in 13 years of this Government. We have had £109 billion from North sea oil but very little of it has gone into public transport infrastructure. The Minister said again tonight that he wants to rely only on private money. Where is private money during a recession?

Mr. Skinner : In Lloyd's?

Mr. Cohen : No, it is not there either. The Government are washing their hands of what they should do in terms of building up our public transport infrastructure. I welcome the element in the Bill concerning the extension to south London.

Mr. Redmond : We used to have an excellent transport service in south Yorkshire until the Government intervened. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will agree that London desperately needs a co-ordinated transport system which takes people off the road and puts them on to rail. However, the Government have no sensible suggestions in that regard because they believe in market forces. Regrettably, market forces do nothing to improve services. Instead, they cause the cost of fares for the people in London to escalate. As a northern person, I implore people in London to demand co-ordinated cheap and efficient services so that the emergency services can move freely on the roads in London, something that they cannot do now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will be very ingenious if he can respond to that intervention and remain in order.

Mr. Cohen : I can do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Bill will mean less co-ordination of services because the

Column 768

control of London's transport is being fragmented. By passing control to the LDDC halfway through the procedure, there will be less co-ordination. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) speaks from experience. He knows that we get better services if there is overall co-ordination.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar was right to say that the docklands light railway does not run properly. However, will the new line run properly? My hon. Friend said that the residents in her area suffer from noise and pollution. Will residents by the extended line suffer noise and pollution problems? She said that inherent noise problems were built in at the initial stage. Will that be the case with the extension? She also referred to inherent breakdowns. Will they occur on the new system?

The Minister made a very short speech, but he should have found time to respond to those basic issues about the docklands light railway. He should at least have said that the new system will not have the faults of the existing system. It was worrying that the Minister could not give any assurance about that. It looks like the same problems will be experienced, but that they will be extended. In those circumstances, it might have been a better option to extend and improve the east London line to south and south-east London. The east London line has better links with east London and it might have been an option worth considering. Even if there are problems with the docklands light railway and the Minister still wants to go ahead--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The Chair has allowed a fairly wide debate on the Third Reading of this Bill because it is closely linked with the Second Reading of the No. 2 Bill. However, it strays beyond that for the hon. Member for Leyton to talk about other options.

Mr. Cohen : I accede to your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Redmond : I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the argument has been about the lack of response by the Government to compensate those who will be affected by the development. If the residents are convinced that compensation is the order of the day, they should press and press again. Only by doing that can they hope for a Government U-turn, which the Government have done in respect of many other matters not connected with this. I urge the residents to ensure that they give maximum support to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), who has done such an excellent job. The only way to obtain compensation is to press and press again. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me.

Mr. Cohen : I agree with my hon. Friend.

The transfer of the Bill to the LDDC halfway through its proceedings is disgraceful. The Bill was brought forward by the LRT and it was later switched over to the LDDC. Nobody knows who is responsible for what. Who is responsible for controlling the contractor, who is responsible for safety, and who is responsible for the compensation that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar have requested? Again, no light was shed on that matter by the Minister. That is a disgrace.

The transfer to the LDDC is wrong in principle, because we cannot ensure the strategic planning for London transport as a whole, and it breaks up

Column 769

management of the transport network. It also is a step in the direction of privatisation. The travelcard and concessionary fares systems could be put at risk in that part of the network. The transfer to the LDDC is wrong, particularly halfway through the proceedings on this private Bill.

Under the private Bill procedure, there was an objection by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. Attempts should have been made to meet her objection to try to resolve the matter. That is the normal process. If there is no objection, a Bill quickly passes through the House. If there is an objection, a Bill can sometimes flounder. I do not think that the objection that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar eloquently put was insurmountable. If LRT, the LDDC or the Government wanted to, they could have met her objection. In part, they did not want to because they were shifting responsibility. They could have set up the community trust fund to supply some of the compensation to which my hon. Friend referred. One of the few points that the Minister made about the amenity fund was that it has nothing to do with the Department of Transport, but it is a matter for the Department of the Environment. He said, "Go to it and try to persuade it to give you a few bob for the residents who are suffering." If a Department of the Environment Minister had been present, he would have said, "It has nothing to do with us, it concerns the Department of Transport." That mirrors the shift of responsibility between London Regional Transport and the LDDC. The LDDC says, "It has nothing to do with us, it is a matter for the docklands corporation." The docklands corporation would say, "It has nothing to do with us ; London Transport is bringing forward the Bill." That demonstrates the Government's shiftiness in avoiding resolving my hon. Friend's simple objection. It took an hour to raise it because it could not be resolved simply.

Mr. Freeman : There was no ambiguity in what I said. The Government's proposal is to transfer the DLR from London Regional Transport to the LDDC. If a decision is taken to ratify that and give instructions to London Regional Transport to that effect, responsibility for the amenity fund will rest with the LDDC. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who spoke for the Opposition, gave no commitment or promise to provide an amenity fund. I have not ruled it out and I hope that I have given a positive, clear and constructive response to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). I have visited the site. I recognise the problems and I have told her where the responsibility lies.

Mr. Cohen : I still think that the Minister is being somewhat mealy- mouthed. He says that the responsibility is with the LDDC but does not give any commitment to a fund.

Ms. Gordon : My hon. Friend is right. The Minister may have come down to the site and may have sympathy with the community and understand its problems but my impression is that the decision about a fund will be taken by the Department of the Environment and the LDDC, which is not sympathetic. We could not get more than £50,000 for thousands of television aerials, so how can we expect to obtain a decent amenity fund as compensation for the loss of facilities with the docklands light railway extension?

Column 770

The people of Greenwich and Lewisham should also ask what type of metal the extension will be made of. Will it be heavy -gauge metal or the light metal with metal wheels against metal tracks that will deteriorate, need regrinding and make a terrible noise? Many matters have been left out which should have been specified in the Bill, so we cannot be certain how the line will be built. Therefore, we have to oppose it.

Mr. Cohen : I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have reached the Third Reading of the Bill. My hon. Friend has made her objections clear from the initiation of the Bill in the House. The Government, the promoters or the LDDC, which will take over the railway, should have got their act together, met my hon. Friend and come up with an offer of compensation for her constituents who will suffer. It is all right for the Minister to say that he is still open minded. He should have come up with the cash. He has had plenty of time to do that.

Mr. Redmond : Can my hon. Friend clarify what the Minister said ? Lots of names are being bandied about by the Minister and he has made lots of promises about the project. But I am at a loss to understand--perhaps my hon. Friend can explain--why positive steps have not been taken to allay the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and to meet the objections of her constituents. I listened most carefully to what the Minister said. Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be a danger that any money found for compensation will be taken elsewhere? Given the great giveaway that is taking place, I am at a loss to understand why the Minister has not come to the Dispatch Box and said that several million pounds will be provided to satisfy the points raised.

Mr. Cohen : That is a fair point. The Government think that my hon. Friend's constituents are not important and that they can walk all over them. Until now, the Government thought that they could walk all over my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar, even though she has made an objection on behalf of her constituents. She has shown the Government that they have another think coming. She will not let the Government walk all over her constituents and treat them in such an appalling way. The Minister must come up with the cash and an amenity fund to compensate her constituents.

The environmental aspects of the extension must also be dealt with. As my hon. Friend said, it is being built on the cheap. Some sections should be built by cut and cover. Improvement of the environment, compensation and the amenity fund should be written into the Bill.

Mr. Skinner : I am pleased that my hon. Friend has referred to the environment. We are talking about an environmentally sensitive aea. A Tory Minister came here the other day and talked about providing money for environmentally sensitive areas. I thought, "Hello. Summat for Bolsover, because of the dioxin." But I am not going to talk about that tonight. What was it for? It was money for environmentally sensitive areas in Tory marginal seats. It was an electorally sensitive area grant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) is representing her constituents and demanding some form of compensation for them from this tinpot Minister, who reckons to run the railways, because they

Column 771

will be blighted by the railway development and what she referred to as its Hornby-like tracks. I had better not say any more because it is already a matter for the courts.

The Secretary of State for Transport is here--the Minister who went upstairs to see the railway exhibition on the first floor of the House of Commons last week. What did he do? The £60,000 a year Tory Cabinet Minister smashed the clockwork trains. The whole clockwork arrangement on the floor came to a shuddering halt when that man ran it into the ground. He is supposed to have had 13 years in Government and he cannot even run a clockwork train. He is educated beyond his intelligence. Let us hear from him.

Mr. Cohen : I am happy to give way to the Minister.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because he has given me the first opportunity since that curious piece appeared in The Times Diary to say that The Times has since apologised. It was a case of mistaken identity. I have not even visited the exhibition in question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I hope that we can now get back on the rails.

Mr. Cohen : I shall try to get back on track, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree that the area should be treated as environmentally sensitive. That is why I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. The railway should be in cuts or covered in certain places and the amenity fund to compensate her constituents should be on the face of the Bill. We need more commitment than the Minister has shown tonight. The opinion of the House is clear--he should come up with the cash. He should compensate my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. Redmond : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cohen : Yes, but this will have to be the last intervention.

Mr. Redmond : I am concerned whether the Bill will provide what it says that it intends to provide--an efficient cheap service which will be integrated with the London transport system. I am not confident that that is the case. I have listened to some of the arguments, although not all. Will my hon. Friend give me some assurance which will stop a Division? Having taken a train to travel here on Sunday night and sampled some of the delays on the way from Scotland to the City, I wonder whether one can accept what is being said by the Government side and by the promoter of the Bill. Can my hon. Friend give me that assurance as I have grave reservations?

Mr. Cohen : I suspect that my hon. Friend will not get a reservation on that particular train. I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance he requires because I suspect that the train will not be cheap in terms of fares. However, it certainly will be cheap in terms of its building costs-- just like the existing system. The service will not be integrated because it will be managed in a different way from London Transport.

Ms. Gordon : My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) has asked serveral times to be

Column 772

assured that the railway will be a cheap and integrated service. It is my understanding that the private company that will run that railway will charge a premium fare. We do not know how much that will be and whether it will be in line with normal fares. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that.

Mr. Cohen : We are on Third Reading, with 16 minutes of debate to go and we now learn that premium fares are likely to be charged. That was not referred to by the sponsor or the Minister in his exceptionally short speech. It is extremely worrying to contemplate the introduction of premium fares. Fares across the capital have already gone up, so how much will the premium fare be? What effect will it have on concessionary fares?

Mr. Skinner : My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) demanded from the Minister what would happen in the subsequent takeover in respect of concessionary fares for pensioners and the disabled. The concessionary fare system in London is pretty good in comparison with the rest of the country. In response the Minister said something like, "It is not our intention". We know that that is parliamentary gobbledegook, because that means that in the event of the Tories winning the next election--if they are lucky--the whole concessionary fare system could go down the drain. That is what "intention" means.

The Government are now talking about a public sector borrowing requirement of up to £30 billion and it is a scandal that they cannot find enough money to compensate the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. What is worse, someone from the royal family will open the railway. Di will turn up in her Mercedes or the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who got a Mercedes from Maxwell for a quid, might come along. I have a straight John Bull question for my hon. Friend. Does he believe that the compensation for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar should come from taxing the Queen's income?

Mr. Cohen : That is a fair question. I signed the early-day motion, along with a number of hon. Members, to that effect.

I doubt whether the Queen will come along to open this particular line, because the story goes that she came along to open the original docklands light railway and got stuck in one of the carriages. She got stuck because the railway was of a poor standard, even then. She will probably send Fergie along instead in the hope that she will get stuck in a carriage for ever.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right about borrowing, which will be a key issue in the Budget. They should borrow the money to compensate the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. If borrowing is a good option when it comes to the economy--

Mr. Skinner : It is flavour of the month.

Mr. Cohen : Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Therefore, it is appropriate to borrow money to compensate my hon. Friend's constituents and to improve their environment.

Mr. Cryer : We are now on Third Reading and, unfortunately, amendments are not easily applicable at this stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and

Column 773

Poplar (Ms. Gordon) is the principal opponent of the Bill. However, she has made it clear that she supports the construction of railways, as we all do in the Labour party. However, because of the absence of clear safeguards in the Bill, she felt that she had to oppose it. Could my hon. Friend elaborate on some of those safeguards so that the House can be quite clear about the argument? People are keen to have railways that provide public transport on the basis of decent safeguards, but those safeguards have been rejected by the promoters in what appears to be a disgraceful fashion.

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend is right. I support improving and investing in the railways and our whole public transport infrastructure. In his repeated interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) has answered my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). We need a co-ordinated system of public transport. Indeed, in London we need an integrated public transport system. Instead, we have chaos in many respects.

Mr. Redmond : Two points need to be clarified. First, reference has been made to whether the construction will be of a standard to ensure that the line will be able to run without the breakdowns associated with the modern system. The service that British Rail operates leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. If the Bill allows substandard development, it will lead to all sorts of chaos, such as we hear on news bulletins on transport in London.

Secondly, will my hon. Friend clarify the Minister's point about concessionary fares that will apply to residents of the area? Who will pay for them? They will be financed not by the company seeking to own and operate the railway but by the various boroughs that fall within the area covered by the line.

Will the construction of the railway be of a substantial nature and who will pay for the concessionary fares that the Minister said will be available once a private company is operating the line?

Mr. Cohen : That is exactly what the Minister was asked. Will there be the same problems with the extended line as there are with the existing docklands light railway? The Minister failed to respond or say whether it would be an improvement on the existing structure. I suspect that it will not.

I am reminded of an appalling evening that I spent in the docklands. Actually, I enjoyed the concert at the London Arena with my step-lad and his girlfriend. We travelled on the docklands light railway but halfway through the concert it was announced that the light railway would not be running at the end of the concert. So we were trapped in the arena and had to walk back in the pouring rain. I am told that that is not the first time that that has happened-- [Interruption.] I have said who was at the concert on previous occasions because I have recounted the story in the past. Many people are caught because the operators arbitrarily stop running the trains. I wonder whether they will do the same with the extension.

Mr. Cryer : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cohen : Let me answer the first point about concessionary fares. The Minister said that they would continue, but how much is his assurance worth? Who will pay for those concessionary fares? I doubt whether the LDDC will pay for them if the Bill does not force it to do

Column 774

so. If no legal commitment enforces it to do so, it will not pay for concessionary fares. The next step, as the LDDC goes out of business, will be to sell the railway off and the next company that takes it over and strips its assets will not run a concessionary fare system either. It will certainly not do so out of charity. We support an improved transport infrastructure for the people of Lewisham and south-east London. I want those people to get the jobs, and the seats on the trains-- but I wonder whether they will get either. The Government bribed the people of Kent in the channel tunnel episode ; now they are bribing them with the promise of jobs in docklands. When the trains arrive in Lewisham they will be packed with commuters from Kent whom the Tories are still keen to bribe. So the people of Lewisham, who may think that the extension is a life- saver, will not get their bums on the seats, let alone any jobs.

I should have thought that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) would demand that some trains set off from Lewisham and Greenwich to cater for local people ; otherwise, the commuters arriving at British Rail stations will enter the trains first--

Ms. Gordon : My hon. Friend might like to know that once the railway is extended to Greenwich and later further into Kent my constituents will probably not be able to get seats at Island Gardens ever again. I asked London Transport to arrange that one train every half hour should start at Island Gardens so that people could get a seat on it. London Transport refused ; in fact, it did not give way on anything.

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend's demand was most reasonable. [Interruption.] I see that one of the Conservative Members who represents Lewisham has walked into the Chamber. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) has an important role in the Treasury : he can borrow the money. I am pleased that he has walked in-- [Interruption.] I see that both Conservative Members representing Lewisham are here now. The other one, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has had to take time off to decide which one of his brothers should get a knighthood. These gentlemen could borrow the money so that my hon. Friend's constituents were given the environment that they deserve and the compensation that they deserve.

I have no intention of talking out the Bill, and I have tried to be brief. [Interruption.] I have taken a lot of interventions--worthy interventions that deserved a response. I am happy to sit down now and allow the sponsor of the Bill the last few words.

9.58 pm

Mr. Thorne : With the leave of the House, I shall reply to this interesting debate. I will certainly not talk the Bill out. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) made a detailed speech. I should like to correct one point in it--the original railway was designed for 25,000, not 1,500 people a day. It is now designed to cater for 100,000 a day. I am afraid that there is no time to discuss the hon. Lady's other points. I know that LRT is anxious to discuss various aspects of the Bill with her and that it has been

Column 775

waiting since last October to do so. I hope that she will take the opportunity to discuss her various concerns with LRT in the near future--it is anxious to hear from her.

The Minister asked about the future of Island Gardens station. It is to be demolished ; the new viaduct is to be demolished, but the old viaduct will be left, because, although it has not been preserved, it is of architectural interest. I am afraid that I have no more time in which to respond.

Mr. Redmond : I am grateful for an opportunity to say a few words about this matter--

Mr. Thorne rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put :--

The House divided : Ayes 123, Noes 29.

Division No. 92] [10.00 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Arbuthnot, James

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Baldry, Tony

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Beith, A. J.

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Boswell, Tim

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Carrington, Matthew

Cartwright, John

Cash, William

Chapman, Sydney

Chope, Christopher

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Couchman, James

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Dover, Den

Durant, Sir Anthony

Fallon, Michael

Farr, Sir John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Franks, Cecil

Freeman, Roger

Fry, Peter

Gale, Roger

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Ground, Patrick

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hanley, Jeremy

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Harris, David

Hawkins, Christopher

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Irvine, Michael

Jack, Michael

Jackson, Robert

Jessel, Toby

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Lightbown, David

Lord, Michael

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Mans, Keith

Maples, John

Marek, Dr John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Maude, Hon Francis

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Moate, Roger

Morrison, Sir Charles

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Neubert, Sir Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Norris, Steve

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Paice, James

Patnick, Irvine

Porter, David (Waveney)

Riddick, Graham

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Ruddock, Joan

Sayeed, Jonathan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Summerson, Hugo

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thorne, Neil

Next Section

Home Page