| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Boateng : I am sure that that is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward tomorrow afternoon at Prime Minister's Question Time to the Prime Minister taking the opportunity to denounce the hon. Member for Davyhulme--unless, of course, the Prime Minister is so preoccupied with his own parlous position that, once again, it slips his mind.
The amendments are welcome. I refer not only to the Lords amendments but to those that stand in the names of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. They are welcome, because they highlight the plight of children and young people as refugees, and also the plight of those caught up in the crisis in Yugoslavia.
My constituency experience, however, is that of unaccompanied child refugees from Somalia and the Horn of Africa. The Minister knows, because there has been correspondence between myself and his Department, as well as with the Department of the Environment on the issue, that we have in our schools the highest ratio of
Column 42
children and young people from Somalia, whose very real needs have been met only as a result of considerable sacrifice and selflessness on the part of teachers, social workers and others in the London borough of Brent.They have worked until now--it is still the case, although I am glad to hear that it will shortly be remedied--without any additional resources from central Government. It is therefore welcome that some resources, at any rate, are to be made available. One is anxious that they should come on tap as quickly as possible. We look forward to hearing from the Minister that this new money--and we want a guarantee that it will be new money-- will be provided quickly and will be focused on the urgent needs of those young refugees.
The importance of the Lords amendment is that it seeks to put on a statutory basis that which the Government now say they are prepared to do, belatedly and under pressure, on a voluntary basis. It is important that it should be put on a statutory basis. It provides the clearest indication of the Government's commitment to this issue. It promises continuity and the stability of provision. It also ensures that the Government put their money where their mouth is. Without the provision of resources, it is difficult to believe that the Government's commitment will be worth the paper upon which it is written.
We are worried about how the voluntary scheme is to be established, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assist us. Will the Children's Legal Centre be fully involved and consulted? Will the British Refugee Council and other bodies working with children have additional resources to enable them better to do their job? What will be the mechanism for liaison between social services and those with specific responsibilities under the voluntary scheme?
5 pm
My borough is not alone in finding that, after 6 pm, the police are the social services because of the constraint on local authority budgets. Refugees arrive at all times of the day and night. Those of us who represent boroughs adjacent to the main ports of entry know that there can be calls on the local authority social services departments literally at any time. Before we accept the Government's assurances, we want to hear more about how the voluntary scheme will work in practice.
This country's commitment under international law and under article 3 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child is clear. It is to ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration and that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative or legislative bodies, those best interests are given the primacy of consideration that is their due. What better way to ensure that than by statute? It is not for nothing that the House of Lords passed the amendment. It recognised that the only way to ensure that the child's interests are paramount is to give the notion statutory backing.
We have a specific responsibility to children and young people. They are the most vulnerable sector of the refugee community. Their young lives are all too often shaped, twisted and distorted in ways that we can barely begin to imagine by the horror of their experiences in the countries from which they flee and by the trauma of their journey. We must ensure that on their arrival on these shores--they will already have had to overcome enormous barriers to
Column 43
get here--they find a genuine sanctuary and refuge and that, for a while at least, they have at their disposal someone with a statutory duty to relate to them as a friend.It is not without significance that amendment No. 2 deals, which deals with the appointment of functions of the advisory panel, refers specifically to the notion of "befriending" a young person. I have never seen that word used in any statutory provision but, when we are talking about children who have undergone such experiences, it is right to ensure that they have a statutory right to have someone as their friend who will stand up for them against what can often be a hostile, oppressive and alien bureaucracy. It is right that the friend should have the backing of statute. When we give the House the opportunity to vote on the amendment, I hope that hon. Members will uphold it.
Mrs. Barbara Roche (Hornsey and Wood Green) : It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). I wish to associate myself with his remarks about the great anxiety caused to his constituents by the comments of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). I know from my own experience in the past few days that the hon. Gentleman's remarks caused tremendous distress and anxiety to my constituents. The remarks were outrageous and reprehensible, and I am sad that the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Prime Minister have not properly condemned them.
I was delighted when amendments 3 and 4 were made to the Bill in another place. Lord Brightman and Baroness Faithfull are to be congratulated on their hard work in building on our debates in Committee.
The benchmark of a civilised society is how we treat our children. An even greater standard is the way in which we treat other people's children, those who are fleeing traumatic and dangerous situations abroad. The provision of a statutory advisory panel, giving unaccompanied children who may have suffered bereavement, torture and travel to a country that they do not understand, access to an adult to advise and support them, would be progressive and humane. It would help to implement the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which emphasises that the child's best interests should be the primary consideration in any dealings that the state has with the child. The same principle is embodied in the Children Act 1989, which was so warmly welcomed by all parties. Therefore, given that the Government now appear to accept the principle and the difficulties that unaccompanied children face in such circumstances, it seems odd that they cannot put the provision on a statutory basis. If we have such statutory obligations to children, why not include this proposal in the Bill?
The advisory panel would provide support in dealing with local authority departments as well as immigration officials. It would certainly be in line with the well established practice in wardship cases of providing a guardian ad litem to young people.
The horrific experiences that befall refugees affect children as well as adults. We have recently seen many examples from the Bosnian conflict on our television screens. Amnesty International has documented some appalling cases in which children are, in their own right, victims of persecution and torture.
Column 44
They are often threatened with torture and death by people who want to extract information from their parents. They may fear for their own lives because of civil war and attacks by repressive regimes. If parents are imprisoned, dead or missing, children must flee, helped by family and friends. Sometimes they must travel for long periods under hazardous conditions before reaching the United Kingdom. Clearly, only exceptional circumstances would force children to undertake such dangerous and frightening journeys alone. What is the response when unaccompanied children manage to make that dangerous voyage? What faces them when they reach our country? When they come to Britain, they find that there is no special provision for them. Immigration officers, untrained in questioning children, interview them before deciding whether to grant them temporary admission. That interview is crucial to the determination of the child's case. If the child gets over that hurdle and is then given temporary admission, she or he is referred to a local authority which may not know anything about the child's refugee-related needs.The British Refugee Council recently carried out a survey of the provision made by 17 local authorities, 16 of them London boroughs. It revealed that at least 25 children were held in detention by the immigration service on arrival and that 70 children had to wait up to three months before a local authority responded to their needs. At least 50 children were moved more than three times in their first three months in this country. That would be traumatic enough for any child, but for children who have encountered such dangers and who have had such experiences, how much more difficult and
psychologically damaging must this trauma be?
Many children had no access to support from people of their own culture and language. It is not surprising that local authorities, however good their intentions, do not cope as well as they might with those children. Finding the necessary resources and expertise is yet another claim on overstretched budgets. Most individual authorities do not have the resources to sustain the breadth of expertise necessary to deal with the small number of children from a wide range of countries, cultures and languages. They need an advocate who would articulate their needs to ensure that they are met.
There are many examples of what happens to child refugees. The Refugee Council reported that a 15-year-old African refugee child formerly at a dedicated voluntary children's home was kept in Harmondsworth detention centre for a week following his arrival. He had no access to an interpreter for several days, and did not know where he was or why he was being kept there.
A boy of 15 from Zaire, who fled from civil war when his parents died, sought asylum at the port of entry. Immigration passed him on to the local authority social services department, which accommodated him overnight and referred him the next day to a refugee project as being a 16-year-old and therefore not in need. The project found him a place in a refugee hostel where he insisted--and he was believed--that he was 15. The local authority in the end acknowledged its wrong assessment and took him back. Those are just a couple of examples of the difficult situations that such children can face. Like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. MacLennan), I offer my thanks to the Children's
Column 45
Legal Centre, Save the Children and the British Refugee Council for the good advice that we have received during the passage of the Bill.What is the experience elsewhere? The experience of other European countries is instructive. The children's legal centre recently introduced a report entitled "Children or Refugees? A survey of west European policies on unaccompanied refugee children". It shows that, in France, each section of the body that determines refugee status has a person mandated to assess children's applications. In Belgium, children's applications are given priority ; in Denmark, an assessor is nominated. In Sweden, the world leader in the treatment of children, immigration officers who conduct asylum interviews have received special training in interviewing children.
I noted the Minister's opening remarks about some of the administrative changes that he now proposes to introduce. I welcome them. They are long overdue, and it is a shame that we had to wait until the other place debated the issue and introduced the new clauses before the Minister proposed the changes.
If the Minister has such confidence in the proposals, and if they meet with the approval of all parties, why not write them on the face of the Bill? If that is not done, the suspicion must be that they will be temporary and that, when the year runs out or when there are funding difficulties, they will disappear. Can we have some directness on the matter? We press the Minister further about his intentions.
We are not talking about a great number of children. In 1992, 185 unaccompanied child asylum seekers applied for asylum at their point of entry. The provision is necessary for a small number of children in exceptional circumstances, such as those in 1990 during the fighting in Eritrea. The panel of advocates would have only a small cost implication, and the value to the children would far outweigh any cost.
Article 20 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child provides :
"a child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the state".
After all those children have been through, they surely deserve no less.
5.15 pm
Mr. Corbyn : I was a member of the Committees on both the Asylum Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. We twice tried to introduce the amendment that was subsequently carried in the Lords. It is before us today, and the Government are trying to wriggle out of it.
Mr. Charles Wardle indicated dissent.
Mr. Corbyn : The Minister indicates that he is not trying to wriggle out of it. If he is not, I am not entirely certain what his speech was about. Was he not trying to wriggle out of a statutory requirement to look after unaccompanied children when they seek asylum in this country?
The whole principle behind the demands that we made in both Committees was that unaccompanied children deserve special treatment, because they are refugees, because they are unaccompanied, because they are arriving in this country and because they are in danger of
Column 46
falling through all the various nets that are supposed to be constructed to defend children in such a vulnerable situation. It is not so long ago that a number of unaccompanied children arrived in London at the airport, left the airport, having been admitted to the country--nobody gave a thought to what was going to happen to them once they walked through the immigration channels at Heathrow--and, somehow or other, landed up on church steps in my constituency. To the credit of the priests at the church, they immediately took the children in, fed them, clothed them, housed them and looked after them.Subsequently my local authority took responsibility for them. It did not say, "We cannot afford it. We will not do it. These are unaccompanied children who deserve our help and understanding." They were most terribly distressed children, who did not know why they had left their own country, did not understand what had happened there and did not understand a word of English. It was only with great difficulty that interpreters were found to help them. I pay tribute to all those voluntary agencies that helped.
The point that those agencies made to me time after time was that those children deserved better than the good fortune of landing on the right church steps, at the right place and at the right time, with a good samaritan helping them out. When the lesson from that is learned, it must be that there has to be a legally appointed guardian from the point of arrival to look after those children. What do the Government say? "No, we do not need anything like that ; we do not need any statutory requirement whatever".
In Committee on the first Bill, the Minister's predecessor went as far as to question why the children were unaccompanied in the first place. I will tell him and the House why. When people are living in extreme danger--in a state of war, where they might be killed for their political, social or religious beliefs--the first consideration is the safety of their children.
Jewish families in Germany sent their children into exile in the 1930s. They did not know what would happen to their children, but they felt that there was better hope for them outside Nazi Germany than inside it. Many of the children sent into exile were looked after, but, tragically, many more were not and died as a result. Tragically, children all around the world face situations similar to those faced by children in Nazi Germany. We should do better than to weasel our way out--as the Minister seeks to do-- of a proposal that has been agreed by all the agencies and all those who have some understanding and experience, and return to some kind of voluntary scheme.
The reason we are going for a non-statutory, voluntary scheme is that the Government are not prepared to pay the cost of the statutory scheme in the long run. The Government know that there may well be considerable numbers of unaccompanied children arriving in this country in the future. The Government know that, I know that, and everyone who looks at the horrors that exist in so many parts of the world knows that.
Is the solution to close the doors on everyone seeking asylum, or is it to go for an humanita who may be able to come to this country at a later stage.
Column 47
With all that is going on around the world, I would have thought that the Minister could have shown today that he does not agree with what the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said. The Minister could have stood up against the vile, xenophobic and racist nonsense spoken by the hon. Gentleman, and show a spark of humanity in respect of unaccompanied child refugees.I believe strongly in the issue. We debated it many times in Committee. I do not doubt that the payroll vote will be wheeled out in a few minutes' time and the Lords amendments will be defeated, and we will return to some kind of voluntary scheme. That is not satisfactory, and we shall return to the question of guaranteeing real support, real friendship and real protection for victims of the most appalling brutality and terror that exists around the world today.
Miss Joan Lestor (Eccles) : In obedience to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not say much about the speech made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), except to say that the debate is being conducted at a time when xenophobia has found a voice in many parts of Europe. It is most important that we should make it absolutely clear that we will take no part in the speaking of that language.
I want to feel that I live in a country where children who have been persecuted, who have seen their parents tortured and who have little hope in their own country receive a welcome. We should write into statute services that those children will most definitely need. Reference has been made to several laws and conventions that would advance and enhance the position of such children--the 1951 United Nations convention, the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, and article 22 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, so recently ratified by the United Kingdom, which states :
"Refugee children should receive protection and humanitarian assistance in enjoying their rights under this convention." Our own Children Act 1990 states that the interest of children must be paramount. Does that apply only to our own children? Should not the interests of children from other countries also be paramount? In making what is, I suppose, a concession to the tremendous force of the arguments used in the other place, the Minister is making a nod in the direction of that concept, without having the courage to write such a provision into statute.
When I was Front-Bench spokesman with responsibility for children, I went to Hillingdon and talked to people dealing with refugees coming in. I have met child refugees from all parts of the world. I have always been amazed and appalled that, when it comes to child refugees, other European countries can get it right but we cannot. Other European countries have made enormous strides in establishing proper procedures for dealing with child refugees. We are once again bottom of the league, while other countries have statutory procedures giving children an advocate and a friend to whom they can refer for advice.
I do not know whether the Minister has met many child refugees. Does he know what they have been through and what they have suffered? Does he know of their great fear of coming to a country where they do not know the
Column 48
language? Many of them do not know what has happened to their parents, although they know that they may well be dead or that they are persecuted. Many parents put their children on a plane with someone merely to get them out of the country. Faced with the situation with which those parents are faced, we would all make such arrangements.Such children have suffered enormously. They are traumatised and they need all the help that we can give them. But faced with those circumstances, what do we do? Immigration officers have the first bite. They are not trained to deal with child refugees. They have never received any training to help them to cope with children, but they decide whether children can be admitted and considered as applicants for asylum. I do not know how many children have been refused entry to this country.
When we do allow children in, we fingerprint them and treat them as criminals. When we have asked what is the justification for fingerprinting adult asylum seekers and seekers of refugee status, we have been told, "Fraudulent claims have been made for social security benefits." It is all in the Lords Hansard . But that does not apply to children. Before the last election, I asked specific questions about the number of child refugees who had been found guilty of fraud in relation to social security benefits. I was told that the answer was none. That being so, what is the rationale for fingerprinting children?
It is terribly frightening for a child to be fingerprinted. In most of the countries from which the children have come, fingerprinting is the prelude to torture and detention. Why do we have to fingerprint children? What is all that about? Surely we can look at that again. As a civilised country, we ought to enshrine in statute certain services as of right. It would enhance the reputation of the Government, and of the Minister in particular, if the hon. Gentleman accepted the force of the arguments that were used in the other place, which were advanced from both sides of the House. For example, Baroness Faithfull, who is experienced in all questions of social work and who chairs the children's panel that many of us attend, made a moving speech in which she repeatedly drew attention to the bewilderment that child asylum seekers feel. We want to offer them some sort of security.
I read in today's edition of the Evening Standard that Somalian gunmen who attacked Pakistani troops used women and children as human shields to prevent the troops who were guarding a United Nations peacekeeping force at a feeding centre in Mogadishu from doing their job. Just imagine what children from such troubled parts of the world who end up here have been through.
There are not many of us left in the House who were evacuees within this country--and some went abroad--during the last war. We went only a few miles out of London and away from our homes--to escape the bombing and because our parents feared that this country would be invaded and wanted to make sure that we were safe.
Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North) : My hon. Friend is well known for her interest in children, and I had the honour to work with her for a while. Let me reinforce what she says about the trauma that such children undergo. Last week, I was in Azerbaijan and visited a number of refugee camps in which there were a considerable number of children. Those refugees are Azeris in Azerbaijan ; they are in their own country and are being protected ; they are not
Column 49
starving. Yet the trauma among them is most evident. It must be a hundred times worse for a child to be a refugee in a strange country. I can verify absolutely from my own experience what my hon. Friend has said.Miss Lestor : My hon. Friend has made my point for me. I was about to say that, as evacuees, we were in our own country and spoke the same language, albeit, perhaps, in different dialects. We knew a little of what was happening. We knew that our parents were alive, although we thought that they might be killed. The trauma will stay with those of us experienced evacuation as very small children for the rest of our lives. It was a terrifying experience. Imagine how much worse it is for children who come to a strange country whose language they do not speak, when they know that their parents are dead or are being tortured.
We are a civilised nation and are not poor--despite all the Government's efforts to make us into a poor country--yet we apparently cannot find the money to establish a statutory advice service for those children so that they can be assured of some service and can have some guarantee of protection.
Mr. Charles Wardle : When the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) refers to fingerprinting, I hope that she appreciates that many child asylum seekers, like other asylum seekers, apply for asylum without any means of identification. They have no documents. First and foremost, the process of fingerprinting is meant to establish an unshakeable identification. I respect the hon. Lady's work with children, and I entirely understand what she and other hon. Members have said in this debate about the traumatised state of many children who apply for asylum. However, as I explained earlier, we already have the provisions of the Children Act 1989.
5.30 pm
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said that no account was taken of children in immigration law. However, he misses the point. Immigration law and the Geneva convention on refugees do not distinguish between applicants on the basis of age. So far as immigration is concerned, the same considerations apply. In all other respects with regard to children, the Children Act 1989 covers the welfare responsibilities as I have explained.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North began in his usual churlish fashion with some less than welcoming remarks about my right hon. and learned Friend the new Home Secretary. To begin with, he found it a little difficult to remain in order in terms of this debate. I want to respond to some of the remarks made about my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Those remarks, so far as I can see, have little to do with the Lords amendments that we are considering. If hon. Members listened to the radio or watched television last week, I hope that they will be aware of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I had to say about the matter.
I made it absolutely clear then, and repeat now, that I deplore any remarks which give rise to ethnic tensions. I took issue in the media last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme on two counts. The first was his assessment of the size and proportion of the ethnic population as a proportion of the entire population, and the second was his remarks about primary immigration.
Column 50
Primary immigration ended years ago in this country. I will not enlarge upon that, because, if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would rule that I was straying out of order.A constructive and healthy debate about immigration should be conducted regularly in the media and in this House.
Mr. Allen : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wardle : No, I will not expand upon that.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North also referred to Bosnia. Again, he was straying a little out of order. He referred to the 1, 000 ex-detainees and their dependants. He knows full well that the Government depend on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Red Cross for the number of people who have arrived so far.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)--I do not like to think of a debate of this kind in which the hon. Member for Bradford, West does not intervene--referred to family reunion.
I should make it absolutely clear, and I hope not to stray too far out of order as this point related to children, that, in respect of the 1,000 Bosnian ex-detainees, some of whom have already arrived, and their dependants, reunion with their families is being carried out simultaneously where that is possible. For those ex-detainees who arrive outside the normal immigration rules and where someone is granted asylum refugee status, family reunion can follow straight away. Where someone is granted exceptional leave to remain, there is a four-year waiting period. If I were to dwell on that point, no doubt you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Madden : For the accuracy of the record, will the Minister confirm what he told me in his letter that I received today : that, to date, only 235 ex-detainees and only 387 dependants have been received in the United Kingdom? We are a very long way from the figure of 4,000 announced by the former Home Secretary last November.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I have allowed a certain latitude, but I am not prepared to allow any more. The Minister, just like any other hon. Member, must now consider the amendments.
Mr. Wardle : I shall do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the advice offered by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in Committee and subsequently in the discussions that he and I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) about a children's advisory panel. I know of the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm about the subject, and I am grateful for his good wishes to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
However, perhaps the only difference on the matter between the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and me is whether there should be statutory responsibility for the panel. For the reasons that I made as clear as possible, it would be confusing to have statutory responsibility, because there are already clear-cut statutory responsibilities laid on local authority social services departments in that area.
The practical administrative measure which will deliver precisely the same service as the friend and adviser which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has
Column 51
advocated throughout, and which Lord Brightman has advocated, will be delivered by the arrangements which are now in place.Mr. Corbyn : If there is a clear statutory responsibility on local authority social services departments in respect of unaccompanied children, what is the Minister's Department prepared to do to reimburse them for the considerable costs of looking after deeply traumatised children for many years? Such children require a great deal of support, help and counselling.
Mr. Wardle : The hon. Gentleman is aware that I alluded to that earlier. Precisely how the extra funds announced by the Home Secretary on 3 February will be distributed is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) volunteered that there were party political considerations afoot. I fear that he has not had an opportunity to read our debates in Committee, where he will have learnt of administrative measures designed to improve the service that is being offered. That is of fundamental importance. I seem to recall that the hon. Member for Brent, South spoke briefly on Second Reading and asked about legal aid and funding for such advice. He also asked about the arrangements to which I referred earlier. He was concerned for the way in which the Refugee Council and others might operate.
As I said earlier, that is a matter for the Refugee Council which will organise and administer the scheme itself. It has specific Home Office funding for that purpose. The Refugee Council is well placed to work with other voluntary organisations which are active in the area. However, it will be for the Refugee Council to decide whom to consult and when.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) : Will the Minister confirm that, although the Refugee Council has agreed to carry out that work, its stated preference was for a statutory agency ?
Mr. Wardle : Mr. Dubs of the Refugee Council has made that point clear. As the House will be aware, I disagree with that point of view. I am sure that we will find that the Refugee Council will go to work with a will and will make the new panel of advisors work very well. We will be discussing with the Department of Health how best to draw the attention of local authorities to the new
arrangements--probably through an addition to the new guidance that I mentioned earlier, which is in preparation.
The hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) outlined a number of case histories and described arrangements that were in place in other countries. I think that their suspicions are overdone. We are dealing with the treatment of child asylum seekers. This is not a matter of asylum procedures as such. It relates to the treatment of those children. I am absolutely confident that the new administrative measures in place--the new funding for the scheme that will be run by the Refugee Council--will serve the cause of child asylum seekers in this country suitably and well.
For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendments.
Column 52
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment :--The House divided : Ayes 274, Noes 226.
Division No. 286] [5.40 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Aitken, Jonathan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Amess, David
Ancram, Michael
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Ashby, David
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Baldry, Tony
Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bates, Michael
Batiste, Spencer
Bellingham, Henry
Bendall, Vivian
Beresford, Sir Paul
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Booth, Hartley
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Bowden, Andrew
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Brandreth, Gyles
Brazier, Julian
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Browning, Mrs. Angela
Budgen, Nicholas
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butler, Peter
Butterfill, John
Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Carrington, Matthew
Cash, William
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Chapman, Sydney
Clappison, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Colvin, Michael
Congdon, David
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cormack, Patrick
Couchman, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Deva, Nirj Joseph
Dickens, Geoffrey
Dicks, Terry
Dorrell, Stephen
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Dover, Den
Duncan, Alan
Duncan-Smith, Iain
Dunn, Bob
Durant, Sir Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Evennett, David
Faber, David
Fabricant, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Forman, Nigel
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Forth, Eric
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Freeman, Roger
French, Douglas
Fry, Peter
Gale, Roger
Gallie, Phil
Gardiner, Sir George
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Garnier, Edward
Gill, Christopher
Gillan, Cheryl
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Gorst, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Hague, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Hanley, Jeremy
Hannam, Sir John
Harris, David
Haselhurst, Alan
Hawkins, Nick
Hayes, Jerry
Heald, Oliver
Hendry, Charles
Hicks, Robert
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Horam, John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Hunter, Andrew
Jack, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Jenkin, Bernard
Jessel, Toby
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Key, Robert
Kilfedder, Sir James
King, Rt Hon Tom
Kirkhope, Timothy
Knapman, Roger
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Knox, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Legg, Barry
Leigh, Edward
Lennox-Boyd, Mark
| Next Section
| Home Page |