House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Dec 1992

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : I congratulate the Government on the improvements that have been made to the Bill since Second Reading, but I am also in favour of the amendment, which goes to the heart of the difficulties--in fact, I would say the crisis--facing the fishing industry. I do not think that anyone would deny that there was a crisis ; nor do I think that any fishermen--certainly not those in my constituency--would deny the need for conservation measures. Even professional fishermen accept the need for technical conservation measures, whether the details involve a different net regime, a change of tackle or compulsory tie-up.

However, fishermen are concerned that the measures should be uniformly accepted and enforced across the Community. The difficulty with the Bill, despite its laudable aim of trying to preserve fish stocks, is that it disadvantages our professional fishermen. If it were to be adopted throughout the Community, and if our fishermen could believe that there would be fishery inspectors throughout the Community to enforce it with the same enthusiasm and rigour as on the quays of our fishing ports, they would be prepared to discuss and accept much of it. The difficulty is that the Bill does not affect our competitors in the Community ; it will simply disadvantage our fishermen. That seems a curious situation.

10.30 pm

I readily accept the idea of round table talks. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has been assiduous in talking to the industry in the past--but although the industry is willing to discuss technical measures and effort control, it is united in its view that it has now become the victim of unfair competition.

When the issue of the single market is raised, I invariably use three criteria to judge whether it is working. First, I would hope that a Devon business man would be able to drive his car to France and use his cellular telephone there. The reality is that he cannot, because none of the European countries is willing to accept the allocation of radio frequencies across Europe.

My second criterion would be whether a Devon business man could catch a British Airways plane in Madrid and fly to Rome. The truth is that there is no single market, because British Airways cannot pick up passengers in second countries and take them to third countries. The third criterion that I use to judge whether we have a free Community is whether Devon fishermen can fish in

Column 944

French waters. The truth is that, in this country, fishing regulations are enforced with a single-minded enthusiasm not matched by our competitors anywhere else in Europe. We have heard all the apocryphal stories on the theme that we have 180 fishery inspectors in this country whereas there are only 18 in Spain--and they are all based in Madrid. The fact remains that our fishermen are severely disadvantaged.

The intention behind the Bill is laudable. It is clear that it will go through tonight, and the Minister is well aware of the depth of feeling in our ports, and the concerns about the future expressed by our fishermen. In all honesty, they do not have a future at the moment. So long as the French and the Spanish continue to quota-hop, our fishermen's future is bleak indeed. They uniformly oppose the Bill, not because they oppose conservation but because they oppose Europe. I failed to catch your eye during our earlier debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but several hon. Members talked about the fact that foreign fishermen can fish in our waters. Nothing has been done about that, and there is nothing in the Bill to deal with the problem. I welcome the conservation effort that the Bill will make, but I wish that it could be applied throughout Europe. I should like an assurance from the Minister that he will ensure that our European partners are willing to enforce the same kinds of effort control and tie-up regulations as will be achieved through the Bill. If he can give me that assurance, he will certainly receive my support.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) : I have been involved in the proceedings on the Bill since they began. It started off as a bad Bill ; it has not finished up as a much better one. Now that it has reached the limit of its consideration in the Commons, it is almost certain to be passed--by the brute votes of Conservative Members and because Conservative Members representing fishing ports have effectively betrayed their fishing constituents by voting to deprive them of the right to go to sea and to impose a closure on them. I am sympathetic to what I assume to be the intention of the amendment--I say "assume", because the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) told us nothing about what the amendment would achieve or how it would achieve it. Presumably, he is trying to ensure that the days-at-sea limitation will not be introduced unless similar limitations are operated in respect of other European Community member states. I agree that it is utterly wrong that our fishermen should be limited in the amount of time that they can go to sea but that similar limits should not be imposed on other fishermen--who will come in and clean up the grounds while our fishermen are compulsorily tied up under the Government's proposals. The principle of the amendment is exactly right, but the way in which the hon. Gentleman has gone about drafting it is

incomprehensible to me. The Bill amends the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, which allows the imposition of conditions on licences. The Lords amendment to those conditions on licences says that they can include

"conditions which do not relate directly to fishing".

The amendment would insert after "conditions" the words "agreed upon by all member countries of the European Community" and so would not exactly achieve what the hon. Gentleman tells us it would achieve. It is the product of a noble

Column 945

aspiration, but the hon. Member and his party have gone about things in an incomprehensible fashion, and I do not see that it would achieve what it sets out to achieve.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Let me speak in support of the amendment. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has already admitted that it is technically imperfect but it nevertheless drives at the very important principle of equivalence. It is all very well the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) noting that the amendment is technically imperfect. He will see from the amendment paper that the amendments tabled by the Labour party are starred because they were not tabled in time. Far be it from me to have to defend the Liberal Democrats, but I felt it right to make that point. I repeat that, although the amendment is imperfect, it drives at an important principle.

A few minutes ago, the Minister was saying what a great consultation process he had engaged in with the fishing industry. He gave us a long list of meetings that he had held recently, as if that proved that he was a Minister who consulted the industry. But that of itself is not consultation. Consultation involves not just having meetings but listening at those meetings and then taking the appropriate action. I presume that it is no coincidence that the Minister's next meeting is to take place simultaneously with the huge fishing demonstration that is to be held in Edinburgh on Friday. The Minister says that he is engaged in a process of consultation. The challenge for him this evening is to show us that the process is meaningful. All of us from fishing communities and constituencies remember the Committee stage of the Bill, during which the Minister finessed Conservative Back Benchers' concern by apparently making commitments in connection with the question whether restrictions would be imposed on fishermen in the United Kingdom without similar restrictions being imposed on fishermen thoughout the European Community.

Column 946

Some Opposition Members may argue that it is not all that difficult to fool those on the Conservative Back Benches, particularly when they are of a mind to allow themselves to be gulled. Even so, there is no question but that what the Minister has done does not provide for the sort of undertaking that was sought when amendments were being debated in Committee.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) withdrew his amendment on that occasion, and allowed himself to be taken in by the Minister's apparent assurances. There is no doubt, however, that the intention behind the amendment was to ensure that the principle of equivalence applied and that restrictions were not unilaterally and discriminatorily imposed on fishermen in this country.

May I turn the Minister's attention in particular to the letter that he has been sent by the chief executives of both the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations? That letter, dated 17 November, deals directly with the point at issue in this debate. The two federations are quite reasonably asking why the assurances that were apparently given have not been translated into the Bill and what guarantee there is that "effective steps"--the words that the Minister used on that occasion--will be taken in other countries.

What guarantee or objective criteria can the Minister cite to show that effective steps are being taken in other Community countries? The Minister can gainsay me if I am wrong, but I understand that the letter of 17 November has not yet received a reply. In line with the process of consultation, when will those two chief executives receive a reply to that letter? Will that reply be anything more than "taking note", "having meetings" and, apparently, "listening", with still no effective action being taken to redeem the apparent promises that the Minister was prepared to make from the Government Front Bench when he thought he was in trouble when the Bill was debated some months ago?

Column 947

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I do so in response to the point that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has just made. I am one of those Conservative Back Benchers who, on Report and Third Reading of this Bill, was involved in a series of consultations and possibly negotiations with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

What the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has just said is true to the extent that I was told that, before the Government acted on tying up, the Minister would have to convince the House that equivalent measures were being taken by other member states. As the hon. Gentleman said, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State replied to the debate on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), the phrase was changed to "effective measures" being taken by other member states. I do not view that with great suspicion. Perhaps the significance had not dawned on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the difference between the words "equivalent" and "effective". I believe that there is a difference.

The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) puts me in some difficulty, because I fully support the sentiments behind it. However, the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that, like a lot of things about the Liberal party, the intentions are good, but it will not be very good in practice. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman rightly admitted that the amendment is very defective.

However, I will vote for the amendment tonight. Despite all the imperfections in the amendment, it is important for the industry to be convinced that somehow or other it will not have imposed on it tying-up measures that are not going to be imposed--to a degree at least--on other member states. I will support the amendment, although I do not think that it will be carried.

As I said in our earlier debate, the really important vote will not be taken tonight on any of the amendments. The really important vote will be taken some time in the new year, when the order is to be laid before this House and another place to introduce tying up--if the Government go ahead with it. As I have already said, I will vote against that order.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) wants to tie up the Minister of State, because he is guilty of a lot.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to representations that he has received from fishermen in Eyemouth. He will be aware that a number of fishermen from my constituency work out of the harbour at Eyemouth ; that was why I attended a public meeting in that town two weeks ago. I listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire had to say on that occasion and I am sure that we both listened very carefully to the strong feelings expressed by fishermen, their families and others from the community who depend heavily on the fishing industry.

The anger of those people was clear. I got the impression that they would like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire to vote against the Government perhaps even more consistently than he does. The anger of those people and their families was clear. They certainly do not want the Bill to give any more

Column 948

powers to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Scottish Office to impose arbitrary restrictions on the industry. They do not trust the Minister and his Government. Understandably, they are apprehensive about the possible effects of such legislation. They do not want more draconian powers to be imposed under the Bill. 10.45 pm

I am profoundly concerned about what is happening to the fishing industry. Of course we must have conservation, but it must be seen to be fair and rational. Frankly, the way in which it is imposed is neither fair nor rational. When fishermen are required to reduce their fishing effort as a consequence of conservation measures, they should be entitled to at least the same level of transitional support which farmers receive. I am worried about the problems which processors and consumers face.

I was shocked by a letter I received from a constituent the other day. He had been told by the fishmonger who regularly goes around the doors in the village by van that he would not be coming until next year because fish supplies had dried up. He wrote to ask whether the Tory Government had introduced food rationing on top of all the other deprivations that we have at present.

We need a fair approach to the fishing industry throughout the European Community. If the amendment can help to achieve that objective, it is worth supporting.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : I endorse the comments that have been made, not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in moving the amendment but by the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). The essence of the amendment, albeit perhaps not with technical perfection, is to emphasise that our British fishermen resent the fact that they--to use the words that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) used yesterday to describe the position in Lochinver in his constituency--have been put into the brutal straitjacket of limited fishing days at sea. The same restriction does not apply to their continental competitors. It is frustrating for them to be tied up and not allowed to prosecute a fishery when some of their competitors from other EC countries are allowed to do so.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan referred to a letter which has been sent by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to the Minister in which they give some colouring and substance to the undertaking which the Minister gave during the debate on the amendment of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). The Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations suggested an amendment to the noble Lords in another place. When their Lordships sought to move that amendment, they were told by Earl Howe that it was a wrecking amendment, although they were trying to give substance to what the Minister had said.

In an earlier debate this evening, the Minister said that there were Lords amendments which honoured his commitment. We will be interested to know what those amendments are. The Minister said that we would need his lawyer's briefing to explain them to us. In moving the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, Earl Howe referred to two important developments

Column 949

that had taken place in the Bill while it was being debated elsewhere. The first development was that there would be parliamentary scrutiny. Such scrutiny must be welcomed. The second was that there would be greater powers to enforce the provisions of the Bill. At no time did Earl Howe refer to any amendment which was significant and would bring continental fishermen in line with the British fishing industry.

I believe that the undertaking that was given has not been honoured, certainly in the spirit, and I am doubtful whether it has been honoured in the letter. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I wish to press the matter tonight. Both sides of the House agree that it is important that stringent rules should be applied fairly to fishermen throughout the Community.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I promise that I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I support amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1. The Lords amendment is a fine amendment because it relates to conditions other than those specifically defined as fishing. I support amendment (a) even though I am not happy with the way in which it was presented. I am not happy that fishermen were described as extremists. The fishermen whom I have met in discussions have been angry men. That does not make them extremists. They were angry, but they should never be seen as extremists. They are fine, decent and honourable men who have been pushed to the limit by a rotten Bill.

If restrictive regulations are to be imposed in the framework of what we must now call a European Community fleet, those restrictions should not be applied against the United Kingdom segment of that fleet. I said earlier that I hoped that, if the Bill became an Act of Parliament, it would be challengeable in the European Court of Justice. It places an unequal and unfair burden on the fishermen of the United Kingdom vis-a-vis other EC fishermen, who fish--dare I say it these days?--in our waters. Perhaps that is too chauvinistic for some of the fervid Europeans on the Conservative Benches, and one or two on the Opposition Benches.

If restrictive regulations are to be imposed on fishermen, they should be European Community--

Mr. Austin Mitchell : Universal.

Dr. Godman : I thank my hon. Friend. The regulations should certainly be EC-wide. They must be seen to be fair and reasonable if they are to be obeyed. For a law to work effectively, it must in the last analysis engender the acceptance of those whose behaviour will be restricted by it. The Bill is rotten for our fishermen. The amendment improves it slightly. That is why I support it, with the regret that the label "extremists" was used against our fishermen.

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : I concur with the point made about the Minister's assurances. It was said that they were not fulfilled in the spirit in which they were given. It is a matter of regret that some hon. Members took those assurances and did not take the chance to table amendments on Report, when we had a better chance of being successful than now, when we must seek to amend amendments, with all the restrictions that that brings.

Column 950

For the record and so that there is no misunderstanding, will the Minister make clear what he means by the phrase

"do not relate directly to fishing"?

Fishing interests need to be clear about what that phrase means.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : My hon. Friends the Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) well deployed the arguments in support of the amendment. But as my fishermen in the port of Lochinver demonstrated yesterday in a manner which was understood throughout the United Kingdom to be a demonstration against the policy of the Government and not against the actions of French fishermen, it is incumbent on me to speak in support of amendment (a). I must also make it plain that we seek equity of treatment between our fishermen and those of other EC countries.

A common fisheries policy with the purpose of conserving stocks around the littoral of Europe cannot be implemented if we repatriate to this country the power to treat our fishermen less well than do the other member countries of the EC.

I have heard it suggested that the drafting of the amendment is defective. It seems to me to be quite well drafted and its purpose is clear. The issue behind the amendment goes to the heart of the debate in this country.

I hope that the spirit of support evinced by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) will be broadly based on the Conservative Benches. His speech should have moved a number of others to follow the cross-party lead. One of the best aspects of a debate of this kind is that it tends to draw in those hon. Members who know a little about what they are debating, which is not always true at this time of night. It is a pity that more Conservative Members are not present to reflect the strength of feeling, but there certainly are some rare birds on the Conservative Benches.

When the Minister of State replies to the debate, I hope that he will not-- [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. I am seeking to follow the hon. Member, but there seems to be an underlying buzz of conversation.

Mr. Maclennan : I hope that the Minister will not rely on defective drafting as a reason for attacking or for refusing to support the amendment. He must deal with the principle behind it, which is one that all hon. Members concerned with the future of the fishing industry are attached to.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : I shall certainly not take refuge in drafting, however defective it may be. Amendment (a) would require Ministers to seek the agreement of all other member states to all the licence conditions attaching to United Kingdom fishing licences. Our present licensing system is used to implement certain European Community requirements, but its management rests entirely with the British Government. It would be wrong for other member states to have a say in matters of national Government. The amendment shoots away the national management of our fisheries policy, and we have spent a whole debate being told that the House does not want that, and that we must not pass control to management committees, as we want it all in the hands of Ministers.

Column 951

Mr. Salmond : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Harris rose --

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro) rose --

Mr. Curry : No, I shall not give way ; I shall answer the questions. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked me--

Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I think that hon. Members know the rule well. If a Minister or any other Member does not give way, Members must resume their seats.

Mr. Curry : I cannot commend amendment (a) to the House. I commend Lords amendment No. 1, which the House will have to consider in response to what has been said, and I shall take the opportunity to explain it.

The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 empowers Ministers to regulate sea fishing through a licensing system. When fishermen receive a fishing licence, they are required to observe all the conditions and rules contained in it. That is primarily to enable fisheries departments to administer and to enforce compliance with the fishing restrictions set out in the licence and to cover fishing and non-fishing activities. For example, it is a condition of the licence that skippers always carry it and its variations on board. Recently, the sheriff at Banff decided that a licence condition, which requires fishermen to radio in when they cross the 4 degrees west line, to the north of Scotland--this is all part of the mackerel flexibility question--was ultra vires under the enabling legislation, as the Minister has no power to impose a licensing condition other than when the vessel is fishing. We believe that under section 4(6) the powers go wider than that, but if the sheriff's decision were sustained on appeal it could have serious implications for the administration and enforcement of other licensing conditions which do not relate explicitly to fishing, such as visiting conditions for quota hopper vessels.

Because of those potential implications, the Bill has been amended to put the matter beyond doubt. Under Lords amendment No. 1, section 4(6) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act will be amended to include an explicit reference to the fact that licence conditions may cover non-fishing activities, provided that they are for the purpose of regulating sea fishing. I commend that amendment to the House, and I do not commend that tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Matthew Taylor : I had not intended to intervene at this time, but the Minister's attitude is extraordinary and unacceptable. I have never been so angry about the way in which the Minister has responded to any other amendment.

The amendment directly affects the livelihoods of many men. In the past couple of weeks in Cornwall men have drowned, arguably because they felt forced to go out to fish in all weathers to make a living. If that was not a factor in those two recent cases, it may be in the future as a result of measures adopted by the Government.

11 pm

I have spoken to friends of those who lost their lives and, understandably and rightly, they feel deeply upset. They associate those deaths with Government policies. I

Column 952

find it extraordinary that the Minister should refuse to give way to any intervention from his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), from my hon. Friends and from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who represents the Scottish National party. The only possible conclusion is that the Minister feels that he has no proper response to the arguments made.

Mr. Salmond : We have heard from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) how the wording "equivalent measures" was changed to "effective measures" after assurances had been given in the House. Does the hon. Gentleman judge that the Minister refused to give way because of the way in which the Government managed to get round the concerns of their own Back Benchers who represent fishing communities? They managed to get themselves off the hook by using parliamentary chicanery.

Mr. Taylor : I agree. I believe that the Minister has misled hon. Members ; we did not place such an interpretation on his earlier comments. The hon. Member for St. Ives has already said that he believes that there is a crucial difference between the two sets of wording. I do not know whether he feels that that difference was directly misleading.

Mr. Harris : I do not want any misunderstanding about this point. The word "equivalent" was used to me, but I do not in any way impugn the reputation of my hon. Friend the Minister as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), in typical fashion, has tried to do. I do not believe for one moment that chicanery was involved. There is a considerable difference in the wording but, on the part of Ministers, it is an honest one. I do not believe for one minute that we have been deliberately misled.

Mr. Taylor : I accept that the hon. Gentleman may hold that view, but it is not shared by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. If things had been put differently, votes might have been cast in a different way. The Government do not have a great majority and the outcome might have been different.

The hon. Member for St. Ives tried to get the Minister to give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that it is not acceptable for the Minister to treat the House as he has, especially on an issue of such sensitivity which affects the livelihoods of people in so many constituencies. By any stretch of the imagination, those people do not have an easy livelihood to make at the best of times.

Given the time of night, the number of hon. Members in the Chamber is large and reflects the degree of concern felt by Members who represent fishermen whose livelihoods are at risk. All those on the Opposition Benches who heard the Minister's appalling response will be keen to vote on the amendment. I hope that Conservative Members in the Chamber will feel the same and will express their opinion of the way in which the Minister has sought to respond to the amendment.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) : I wish to intervene briefly because I am shocked at how the Minister, who is usually fair-minded, has responded to this debate. He has made no substantive response to the points made by Opposition or Conservative Back Benchers. Last week I spent several hours in Padstow, a small fishing community in my constituency where five men have lost their lives at sea in the past two weeks. I do not

Column 953

necessarily suggest that economic conditions have driven people to take risks that they should not have taken, but how can I return to that community and say that the Minister has failed to deal with the vital issue of equivalence between our fishing fleets and those of the other member states of the European Community ?

The Minister was given an opportunity to explain fully and clearly why the equivalence promise that he gave to the House will not now be fulfilled. He should have explained how he would guarantee that our fishing fleets would not have to operate with one hand behind their backs, but he failed to deal with the issue. Indeed, he did not even begin to deal with it but indulged in the pettifogging that one expects from other members of the Government but not from him. In the past he has been a good friend of the fishing industry. Will he now try to meet the requirements, not only of hon. Members who represent fishing communities but of the nation at large, which feels that the fishing industry has been badly let down and looks as though it will be let down still further in future ?

It is not simply a matter of legalistics--the difference between "equivalence" and "equal effectiveness". The industry and the general public are asking for a cast-iron guarantee that the Minister will not put in place measures which cause our industry to work at a disadvantage to other member states and competitor industries. Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made : --

The House divided : Ayes 154, Noes 216.

Division No. 100] [11.6 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Alton, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Barnes, Harry

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Beggs, Roy

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Bennett, Andrew F.

Benton, Joe

Bermingham, Gerald

Betts, Clive

Boateng, Paul

Boyce, Jimmy

Bradley, Keith

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Cann, Jamie

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Clapham, Michael

Clelland, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Coe, Sebastian

Coffey, Ann

Connarty, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Cousins, Jim

Cryer, Bob

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Darling, Alistair

Davidson, Ian

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

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

Denham, John

Dixon, Don

Dowd, Jim

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eastham, Ken

Etherington, Bill

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Foulkes, George

Fyfe, Maria

Gapes, Mike

Gerrard, Neil

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Graham, Thomas

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Hall, Mike

Hanson, David

Hardy, Peter

Harris, David

Heppell, John

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Hinchliffe, David

Home Robertson, John

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Hutton, John

Illsley, Eric

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Jamieson, David

Johnston, Sir Russell

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Next Section

Home Page