|Previous Section||Home Page|
Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride) : That was a very brief explanation. Many contributions were made and questions asked on Second Reading which were not answered in the summing-up and have not been properly discussed in the Minister's short contribution. My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and other hon. Friends asked many interesting and probing questions. We had hoped that the Minister would respond to them.
It is useful to refer to the financial implications of the Bill. There are more people on the Government Benches at this stage of the deliberation of the Bill than there were during the debate. If they only cared to consider that aspect of the measure, they would see that it is proposed that the Bill will achieve gross savings of £550 million in the first year, increasing to £1,450 million in 1996-97. Those are interesting figures if we take them in relation to their offset costs, which are also set out in the Bill. The offset costs are, as stated, £135 million in 1995-96 and £265 million in 1996-97. There are very significant differences between what the offset costs will be as opposed to the original savings. If one considers those figures in percentage terms, it is interesting to note that in the first year the offset costs are in the region of 25 per cent. of the savings, but in year two they drop to 18 per cent. I would be interested to know why there is a change in that relationship. What is changing in terms of those two years' costs against gross savings?
That also raises a question about the breakdown of those figures--the £135 million in year one and the £265 million
Column 124in year two. To what do they relate? In the financial effects of the Bill, it tells us that those figures are because of additional expenditure on income support and unemployment benefit. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us the breakdown of income support and unemployment benefit in year one and in year two and it would be interesting to know how many people will be affected by those sums of money. It is important to consider not only those sums of money--£135 million and £265 million--but the fact that many claimants fall into each of those categories which make up the costs. I am sure that that would be of interest to the House and to the many people who are likely to be affected.
It would also be useful to consider the gross savings--£550 million in year one and £1.45 billion in year two. It would be useful if the Minister gave a breakdown of those savings. What is the make-up of those savings? How much will arise from the cut in benefit? I use that terminology because, undoubtedly, many people will see the new benefit as a cut, as opposed to existing benefits. What proportion of those savings will arise as a result of changes in eligibility? As my hon. Friends said on Second Reading, there are many specialist organisations with an interest in the Bill. Of course, it is not appropriate to go over all the arguments again, but I am sure that those organisations would be interested in answers to those points, so that they are in a position to understand better what the Government are doing to the people who they represent.
More interestingly, why does the projection stop at year two? For instance, why has not the longer term projection been shown? Since 2000 is not that far away, why cannot the Government give a reasonable projection of what they have in mind for those categories at risk in our society? It would not be too difficullt to make that projection, at least I would not think so, because in June of the past year, a famous leaked document gave figures in a slightly different combination on the changes to the benefit and gross savings were projected into year 2000. If it was good enough at that time to speculate on legislation and to deal with proposals between the Departments of Social Security and the Treasury, it would be right to have that projection laid out now that we are discussing the Bill. It is worth pointing out that the figures in that leaked document showed that there would be a projected saving of £180 million in year one and £495 million in year two, rising to savings of £1.3 billion in 2000. If one sets that against the current year two saving of £1.45 billion, something radical has happened in the meantime and even greater savings are being imposed as a consequence. If it was good enough and proper enough at that time to try to arrive at savings projections, in terms of discussions that I assume took place as a result of Treasury pressure on the Department of Social Security to come up with savings, why not tell us about the long- term projections of savings now?
I know that some of my hon. Friends want to raise other points as extensions of those questions and may want to comment on the financial effects of the Bill. Those are important issues which require answers and I hope that the Minister will be properly briefed by his Parliamentary Private Secretary so that he is able to answer them when the time comes.
Column 12510.24 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : The Bill is terribly important. There is something wrong somewhere. In 1953, the year in which she came to the throne, Her Majesty the Queen sent out 210 telegrams to 100-year-old people. Last year she sent out nearly 3,000. That is encouraging for us all because it means that we are all living longer. [ Hon. Members-- : "Your turn soon, Geoffrey."] I have a few years to go yet. How does that increase square with the increase in invalidity benefit ? With people living very much longer, and with a national health service which we are all told--and which we believe--is the best in the world, how can it be right that so many people are claiming invalidity benefit ?
The number of people in receipt of the benefit has almost trebled in the past 15 years. When it was first introduced, there were 550, 000 claimants. Last year, 1.5 million people were claiming it. Given that this is a nation whose health is improving, something is wrong somewhere.
Expenditure on invalidity benefit has almost doubled in the past 10 years, even allowing for inflation. In cash terms, it has more than trebled--from £1.6 billion in 1982-83 to £6.1 billion in 1992-93. Those figures are astounding. Suppose that the benefit remained unreformed. Projections tell us that if the benefit were left as it is, spending on it would rise to £8 billion in 1995-96. That money has to be found. The Government do not have any money. I am sure that Opposition Members will be amazed to learn that it is all taxpayers' money and the money of those who pay contributions. It is because we have been so compassionate and have wanted to support people who are genuine invalids that invalidity benefit has been so attractive when compared with other benefits.
Dr. Godman : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I remind him that invalidity benefit is a contributory benefit and point out that all those of my constituents who I know to be in receipt of invalidity benefit are fine, decent and honourable people who in no way can be described as scroungers.
Mr. Dickens : The hon. Gentleman used the word "scroungers" ; I did not, and I hope that those concerned remember who used the word. The Government seek to ensure that those in genuine need get the help that they richly deserve. That is what compassionate caring Governments are all about. We must bring home to the Opposition the fact that they do not have a monopoly on caring and compassion, although they like to tell the nation that they do. That is unfair. We care just as deeply as they do.
Mr. Dickens : We are not all as intelligent, but some of us are. Something is wrong when people tell me that someone they have seen walking past their house on a crutch all week has suddenly put his crutch under his arm and run for the bus. Those people would love to be on the benefit that he is on, but that cannot be. Take the hon. Member for
Column 126Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He comes limping in on a stick. I myself have arrived on crutches on occasion. I have had a trapped nerve from time to time-- [Interruption.] No, not between the ears. I am sure that my doctor would show great compassion for me and give me a certificate if I needed invalidity benefit. Ah, here is the hon. Member for Workington. I was giving him great praise. He is a man who has not claimed benefit but struggles on at work. There are a lot of people like him around the country.
It is so easy. But what are we doing? We are making it absolutely impossible for the GP to act as our gatekeeper and say who should receive that benefit, which is much higher than other benefits. General practitioners say that it is difficult because they have to put the patients' interests first and foremost. The GP sometimes knows that a patient is out of work or when he is going to retire. I understand that a GP can be placed in an impossible position when he or she has built up a relationship with a patient.
The system that we are to adopt will be much better. Patients can fill in the forms themselves. I am hoping that we shall produce a shopping list of afflictions that will almost automatically warrant the benefit. There must be many such afflictions about which there would be no dispute. The vast majority--
Mr. Dickens : I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You always remind me of such matters. However, had you been in the Chair a little earlier you would have known that I was replying to some figures given by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). I felt entitled to do so, but, having done so and having received your guidance, I shall now move on.
I was talking about the person who walks by with a crutch and then suddenly tucks it under his arm and runs for the bus. Others have reported to me that they sometimes see people who receive invalidity benefit kicking a football with their children or grandchildren at weekends. Other people struggle with arthritis and various conditions, but do not claim invalidity benefit ; even were they to do so, they probably would not receive it.
Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people should not cheat to obtain money. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning companies such as Unicorn which, assisted by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), received £200, 000 from a Government organisation and was then completely forgiven and did not have to repay the money?
With the health service and the--
Column 127amendments. It is important to the nation-- to the taxpayers and those who pay contributions. We cannot allow such people to be bled by others who are not genuine claimants. By the same token, it is important that those who are in genuine need of the support, receive it, which is what government is all about.
The vast majority of people on invalidity benefit have nothing to fear. If they are genuinely in need--they know whether they are--they have nothing to fear. We owe it to the nation--to those who pay contributions and tax-- to ensure that the money goes where it is due. Therefore, we need a money resolution to complete the terms of the important legislation. We can no longer allow such extravagant expenditure ; we must control waste, which includes giving benefits to those who are not entitled to them.
People can contribute by filling in a form listing all their ailments. If the Department's doctors wish to see such claimants, they will be seen. Most cases will involve genuine claimants whose ailments and diseases will be included on the shopping list so that they qualify for benefit virtually automatically. I am sure that the Minister can clarify that.
Other hon. Members are dying to contribute to the debate. I know the sparkling contributions that are made night after night, particularly at this time, to keep us all happy and up so late. Therefore, I shall now allow those other hon. Members to contribute. 10.34 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : Following the series of prejudices that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has just advertised, I should like to direct the attention of the House back to the Bill's possible financial effects on communities such as mine. I refer not just to individuals but to whole communities. Putting aside the argument about the tests, I want to make the point that this measure envisages the withdrawal of the purchasing power of about £550 million in 1995-96 and the removal of £1.4 billion from communities such as mine. Collective purchasing power will be affected quite seriously. That is a very important point. Most of the expenditure that is generated by a benefit of this kind is quickly recycled into the local community in one way or another. That is why I say that in constituencies such as mine the Bill will result in a considerable reduction in purchasing power.
I have been working on a study of Whitehall's reaction to the economic crisis that communities such as mine faced in the 1930s. There are some very interesting and eerie parallels between the 1930s and the 1980s. Let me mention one of the most interesting differences. The purchasing power of people in communities such as the one that I represent survived the recession of the 1980s, despite the fact that, in many ways, it was just as bad as that of the 1930s. In constituencies such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, 40 per cent. of men of working age are now economically inactive. More than 20 per cent. of them are unemployed, and the rest are otherwise economically inactive.
The difference between the recession of the 1930s and that of the 1980s is accounted for by the post-war pattern
Column 128of regular employment, during which people accumulated contributory rights and benefits. Forty years of reasonably regular full employment, with occupational and contribution schemes, have rendered the recession of the 1980s recession far less disastrous than that of the 1930s. In the past decade, and more, some of the money deriving from those rights and benefits was drawn upon.
In the mid-1980s, many disabled people took the small copper handshake that was available to them, together with the benefits to which they were entitled--in particular, invalidity benefit. A combination of those benefits and occupational pensions sustained purchasing power that would otherwise have collapsed disastrously. That was the major difference between the 1930s and the 1980s.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the people to whom he has referred had to stop work early because of ill health? The nature of the work done by people in constituencies such as his and mine, as well as those of many other Opposition Members, renders them unfit to continue to work until the normal retirement age. Only the protection that they have at present has enabled them to get by.
Mr. Rowlands : My hon. Friend has just described the situation in my constituency. Many people suffering from some form of disability carried on while they were in long-standing employment. When that employment was broken, they accepted early retirement with modest redundancy compensation in addition to their invalidity benefit. My hon. Friend was right to remind people that we are talking about a contributory benefit. One qualifies for it only by working and building up contributions.
I am drawing attention to the qualitive difference between the recession of the 1980s and that of the 1930s. In my constituency, regular employment, as opposed to casual labour, enabled people to build up a series of benefits, which have been drawn upon in the 1980s and the early 1990s. Thus, people have been able to sustain a certain amount of purchasing power. We have not seen the collapse that was so evident and led to mass unemployment in the 1930s. People have somehow been able to sustain a reasonably decent standard of living--nothing great, but at least different from the position in the 1930s. Invalidity benefit has played a significant role in that, because it is not means-tested. It is a benefit as of right. In addition, it is a valuable benefit for so many people who have disabilities.
What will be the impact in communities such as mine of the large-scale and substantial withdrawal of potential purchasing power, as set out in the financial effects of the Bill? The removal of £550 million worth of purchasing power from a significant group of society will have a significant effect. In the Merthyr, Cynon and Rhymney valleys social security area, 28,000 people receive benefit. One must assume that a fair percentage of those people will not qualify for the new benefit. In addition, a large percentage of claimants who would normally have had justified claims, will not receive benefit. That would have to happen or the savings could not be made. What will happen to a significant element of the purchasing power in our societies as a result of the financial effects of the Bill? Has anyone thought the point through?
I would not call it connivance, but we are all aware that invalidity benefit played a major role in some people's decisions to retire early in the 1980s and not to fight for their jobs to the bitter end. That benefit was one of the
Column 129reasons why the miners left their jobs voluntarily. They knew that they could carry with them their redundancy payments and, if they had the appropriate disabilities, they would also receive invalidity benefit.
Invalidity benefit has played a role in the restructuring of employment in many of our communities. It has led to the high inactivity rates of the kind to which I have referred. As I said, 40 per cent. of men of working age in my community are inactive. The notion that people in their mid-50s will be able to return suddenly to the labour market is wrong.
An absurd example was brought to my attention recently. A person appealed against the board's decision to remove invalidity benefit. It was accepted that he could scarcely walk or stand. However, it was suggested that he might find a job as a security officer in a masonic lodge. That is the kind of unbelievable and curious proposal that is already being made under the existing system to deny people from benefiting from rights of that kind.
I wanted to draw to the attention of the House the rather broader context in which the figures should be seen and express concern, which I hope the House shares, about the impact of the financial effects of the Bill on communities such as mine.
Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : This money resolution is the consequence of the "back to basics" policy referred to at the Tory party conference. Let there be no mistake about that. The Secretary of State for Social Security has been accused by the Prime Minister of hijacking the Prime Minister's policy and we are now discussing the financial consequences of that theft of the Prime Minister's policy.
I should like to think that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) did not mean some of the things that he said. He was truly insulting to the weakest, poorest and least advantaged in our country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said earlier, in two years we will take £1.4 billion of purchasing power from the poorest and the people who can least afford to lose that money from their spending power. Those people and the local economies will suffer drastically. The Minister said that part of the reason for the money resolution is to finance an increase in expenditure to implement the new formula for removing 400,000, 500,000, or 600,000 from invalidity benefit. Conservative Members are attacking people whom they say are receiving the benefit when they should not be in receipt of it. They said, literally, that they are defrauding the state by claiming benefit to which they are not entitled.
Mr. Dickens : Did the hon. Gentleman listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who said that coal miners were made redundant and that they came out of the mines--fit to be coal miners--and claimed invalidity benefit ? By the hon. Gentleman's own admission, there are people who are playing the system.
Mr. Rowlands : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Nothing that I said could be interpreted in that way, and I ask the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) to withdraw that comment.
Mr. Hood : As a former miner and a former union secretary, I will explain just how that happened in the coal industry. When pits were being closed and people were being made redundant, a sizeable proportion of the work force were off work, sick and disabled. People were not on invalidity benefit just because they were working one day and not the next. That is nonsense and it proves that that is the Government's thinking. They do not understand how the system works. I do not see many people on invalidity benefit who are not entitled to be on it. Hon. Members will be receiving letters from constituents who are on low incomes through invalidity benefit and who will lose more than £30 a week. We are talking of perhaps as much as 30 to 40 per cent. of income. If Conservative Members lost 30 or 40 per cent. of their incomes, we would hear one or two noises.
There is nothing to be proud of when the Minister tells us that the money resolution allows extra expenditure to work out a system that deprives the sick and disabled from what they have been receiving, which at present is not a lot of money. We are not talking about massive amounts of money. All too often, we are talking about the difference between surviving and not surviving. We should be aware of what we are doing.
The Bill has nothing to do with providing better management of our social security system ; it is about false savings. When we take from the least advantaged--the sick and the disabled--something else has to give. Something else has to provide for them. It might be hospitals or nursing homes. When we cannot sustain people in the community after cutting their incomes, they have to be institutionalised, which puts further burdens on the public purse.
The measure will prove not to be a saving in real terms. It is harsh and-- dare I use the word in these times--truly immoral. There is nothing to be proud of in the money resolution. I ask Conservative Members not to mock those who are least able to defend themselves. I remind them that there is a duty on the Government to seek to improve the quality of life of their poorest citizen. Any Government who seek not to do that are immoral. Conservative Members should think of that as they walk through the Lobby tonight.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : The Minister introduced the money resolution by suggesting that there are three aspects involved, two of which involved increased expenditure on benefits and one which he dismissed in a sentence--"increased costs of administration." That administration, which involves a staff increase of approximately 1, 100, is designed to replace doctors who have been accepted as people of integrity and honesty. The administration will get people away from doctors, so that the hand of Whitehall can transfer people from benefits such as invalidity benefit and put them on reduced income support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) has said.
Column 131There is a rich air of hypocrisy about the Government. Most Conservative Members receive their income as Members of Parliament and supplement it with outside earnings and speculation, and they talk about discipline. When anybody talks about discipline in this place, it is never meant for themselves. It is always about other people, and it is always about other people who are in a much inferior financial position. The Minister, for example, dismissed in a sentence the administration and the costs which will be incurred. That administration will bear down on ordinary people and will knock a few quid a week off their expenditure to get the Government out of the economic hole in which they have got themselves by their incompetence. The poor--yet again--will pay.
The system introduced by the Minister tonight is extremely unfair and incompetent in a parliamentary sense. Parliament has been told that there will be administrative costs estimated at £40 million, which will certainly involve the employment of 1,100 people. What would be the normal response of the Tories when they were told that 1,100 extra civil servants were to be taken on? They would look askance. However, they will not do so in this case because those 1, 100 people will be applying regulations to oppress the poor, sick and needy.
The Minister has not included the outline of the way in which the legislation will be presented. It is not in the Bill, and it will be brought before the House by regulations and by statutory instruments. In some cases, they will be affirmative statutory instruments and we will have a chance to debate the issue in a debate just twice the length of tonight's debate--an hour and a half instead of 45 minutes. We will have no chance of making amendments. All Government Members who troop through the Lobby tonight will have no chance to amend the legislation which will be brought forward by the Minister and his civil servants and by nobody else. It will be a fait accompli. Some of the legislation will be put forward under the negative procedure, so unless there is a prayer there will be no debate at all. That is how £40 million and 1,100 people will be
administered--they will be simply handed over to a ministerial fiat. The Tories will go on accepting that, and then they will go outside and talk about democracy. Their actions will in effect hand over important powers to a Minister who will then administer enormous sums of money.
My hon. Friends have made it clear that the Minister will exercise significant powers through the negative procedure, as the Leader of the House rarely concedes time for the Opposition to debate prayers. The Minister's powers may also wreck the recovery in several areas, particularly in industrial areas, where many people on invalidity benefit are concentrated by virtue of the work that they have undertaken.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Will my hon. Friend consider the points which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) about the consequences for my area? I estimate that, in west Cumbria, we receive £16 million per annum in invalidity benefit. If the Government were to cut benefits on the scale that they proposed today and tightened the criteria, as much as half of that money, depending on how heavy the cuts were, would no longer go into west
Column 132Cumbria. That would take £8 million out of the local economy. It would have a major impact on small businesses, retailers and shopkeepers.
It one takes the turnover of a good shop to be about £100,000, simply reducing a single benefit on which a community has become reliant might affect 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80 shops. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was making. The reductions will have a considerable impact on many of our areas.
Mr. Cryer : My hon. Friend is right. The impact is not in question. The financial effects of the Bill are outlined in the introductory paragaphs, which say that the Bill is designed to save £550 million in 1995-96 and one and a half billion pounds the following year. That is £2 billion in two years. Those are significant sums of money. The money resolution is designed to authorise expenditure on the Whitehall bureaucrats who will oppress the poor and sick on invalidity benefit to produce those savings. There are other savings elsewhere, but by and large that is a reasonable example to use. The proposed changes to invalidity benefit, together with the taxes that the Tory Government have increased more than any Labour Government ever did, will mean that the so-called recovery, which Tory Members-- [Interruption.] --including the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who is babbling on at the moment-- proclaimed will certainly not move much further. Indeed, we shall move back into recession. I see that the Minister is getting slightly restless ; he is raising his eyebrows. His usual attitude to oppressing the poor is one of studied indifference.
I shall complete my remarks by saying that the money resolution is not needed and not wanted. We want to employ more people, we do not want them to oppress people on benefit. We do not want to attack doctors, as the Bill does. Conservative Members have given hints, nods and winks that there are people on invalidity benefit who are dodging the column : no names, no doctor has been mentioned. There has been a general smear of people in the worst position of all--those on low incomes, and invalids to boot. We should vote against the money resolution, thus demonstrating our protest against a wicked, evil, uncaring Government.
Mr. Scott : I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and reinforced by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It was overstated because one must remember that all existing beneficiaries of invalidity benefit will continue to receive it. Everything apart from the additional pension will be uprated year by year. So the purchasing power only of those who failed the new test for one reason or another would be removed. If they failed the test, they would go back into work or on to other benefits. The impact on purchasing power in local areas has been overstated.
I promise the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that I understand the impact that invalidity benefit had when large-scale redundancies took place.
Column 133I understand that invalidity benefit helped to massage the process of redundancies and probably did a good job. But it was not the purpose for which invalidity benefit was established. Nor should we retain that approach to the new incapacity benefit. It is worth reminding ourselves that existing beneficiaries will not be affected by the change.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) asked why no long-term projections, beyond the next two years, had been offered. The figures given in the money resolution relate to the remainder of the public expenditure survey period, which is up to and including 1996-97. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the split between total savings and the savings that would result from the application of the new medical test in 1995-96. I estimate that savings of £200 million will be made.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about ratio costs and the savings changes to be made in the next two years. That interaction is a complex one, and to try to explain it in the remaining moments of the debate would be a mistake. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to make the position clear.
Question put :--
The House divided : Ayes 303, Noes 139.
Division No. 88] [11 pm
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Beresford, Sir Paul
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Browning, Mrs. Angela
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Deva, Nirj Joseph
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Durant, Sir Anthony
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)