| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
If Conservative Members wish to dismiss the content of the treaty as mere institutional tinkering, one must ask why they feel so strongly about the need for a referendum. Either the treaty is about institutional tinkering, and thus the question of a referendum is completely irrelevant, or there is a powerful case for a referendum because the treaty has more significance. The Conservative party needs to get its act together and its thinking straight on this issue.
Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that over the past 25 years every party that has been explicitly opposed to the European Union has lost the subsequent general election. That is largely because the public are far in advance of the Eurosceptic tendency. Whatever Conservative Members might think about the gut feeling of some of their party’s members and their small band of core supporters, the anti-European tendency in the country today represents a minority—and not an election-winning minority. I encourage forward-thinking members of the Tory party to take that on board and to explain it to some of their colleagues. As long as the party has an intrinsic, obsessive, anti-European ethos, it will never come around to supporting the policies that are needed to deal responsibly with climate change.
It is important that the EU reflects its new expansion with the involvement of 27 members rather than 15. It is important that it changes its arrangements, such as on qualified majority voting, and that we have a single voice to the outside world. Rather than having a presidency that rotates every six months, it should last for a longer period to give continuity to policy. The EU must be the leading group of nations in the world on advancing climate change policy.
However—this will be my final point, because I know that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) wishes to speak—climate change cannot be advanced solely by top-down institutional structures. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) seems to assume that because there was a gigantic market failure, there will suddenly be a gigantic market solution, but the market alone does not hold the solution. We will need not only institutional change at the political level, the encouragement of enterprise and the development of new science and technology, but individual behaviour change and the greater involvement of local and regional government throughout the European Union. Does the Minister for the Environment agree that, on climate change, we need not only the right policies at national and EU level, but far greater involvement of local government in the United Kingdom?
3.53 pm
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): I make common cause with the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) to the extent that I have faith in the public. I wish him luck when he goes back to the public in Bury, North at the time of the next general election and explains why he voted against the referendum that was promised in his manifesto even though this treaty, by his own admission, is almost exactly the same as the original constitution, but now has the magical ingredient of six extra words about climate change.
Important questions have been asked during the debate. We have heard well-informed speeches, and I
would ask the same questions that others have posed about the emissions trading scheme. The EU is staking a lot on the scheme, so we need to ask searching questions—in the genuine sense of the term, rather than the sense in which the Government use it—about it.
I share the sense of curiosity expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I agree with him that this is an important subject. I am happy to debate it now and to scrutinise what little there is about climate change in the body of the treaty, but I feel a sense of discomfort that we have not had the opportunity on previous occasions to scrutinise matters such as borders and immigration and defence, where—unlike in the present case—there have been substantial changes to powers, institutional arrangements and treaty provisions. The treaty makes barely any change on environmental matters—it adds just six words, which were implicit in existing provisions. The European Union is already able to do all the things that the Secretary of State told us about on the basis of existing provisions.
I am concerned about that. We are debating an important subject and I want answers to the questions that have been put, but I worry about the way in which this House is scrutinising the provisions of the treaty. It is just one more example of the inadequacy of our method of scrutinising very serious matters.
3.55 pm
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): We have had a good debate—I think that we all agree on that. The first Back Bencher to speak was the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has a distinguished record on environmental matters. Although I do not always agree with everything he says, I acknowledge that he made some sensible comments on the future of European reform. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley), a distinguished member of the Environmental Audit Committee, also spoke, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who, in a well informed contribution, spoke movingly about world food shortages and concerns about biofuels, and about how Europe should deregulate more and grow more food.
We also heard speeches from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who spoke of the positive role for the EU in environmental matters, but expressed great consternation about the Government’s denying a proper debate on the treaty more generally. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) drew attention to Drax and the fact that one chimney emits more CO2 than more than 100 small countries—an extraordinary figure that I had not heard before. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) spoke with his usual expertise and broad understanding.
Although I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), he made his points with great passion and I found myself nodding in agreement with some of them. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) displayed his usual knowledge. Usually when the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) speaks, I learn something; on this occasion, however, somewhat disappointingly, most of
his remarks were about process and words, rather than the solutions with which he is normally associated. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), who is also a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, made an excellent speech: he has become quite an expert on biofuels.
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) is also a great expert, but he, too, ended up talking about process and tinkering with institutional reform. Ultimately, his speech summed up what many of us feel about the debate, because he could not tell us one thing that the constitutional amendment will allow that the EU cannot already do or will not be able to do if the treaty is not passed. It is completely irrelevant. If any Labour Member would like to stand up now and tell me one substantive area where EU competency will be extended by adding those six words, I will gladly take an intervention. Answer there came none.
This debate has been a waste of time in the context of debating the Lisbon treaty. Time spent in this place talking about climate change is never wasted, however; well-informed right hon. and hon. Members can be found in all parts of the House, and I always gain from hearing what others have to say. The genuine conviction felt in all parts of the House is apparent, and when we talk about climate change, we see Parliament at its best. When they got down to solutions, many of the speeches we have heard today demonstrated that point. Conservative Members also welcome the opportunity to flag up the treaty’s failings, but the EU has effectively tackled all sorts of environmental challenges up to now without needing additional binding treaties. The Government are clearly all too aware of the irrelevance of the latest EU treaty to our UK and international efforts to tackle climate change. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) reminded us, the Foreign Secretary said as much. Despite that irrelevance, the Government have insisted on setting aside a whole day for debate on the Lisbon treaty issue of climate change. The Conservatives have argued today that it is more important to debate UK policy, and the policy delivery needed to drive down carbon emissions, delivery solutions and adaptation, than to discuss institutional reform and tinkering with treaties, which are irrelevant to the goal.
In the time remaining, I shall consider a few examples of where the Government are going wrong in their performance on climate change. In the Climate Change Bill—a Bill that I am proud to say my party has been enhancing steadily throughout its passage through another place—the Government are rightly legislating to commit the UK to a minimum emissions reduction of 60 per cent. by 2050. I think that we all accept that that figure may have to be re-examined soon, but how can the Government expect significant carbon reductions in Britain when they have consistently underspent, cut and redirected budget commitments for energy efficiency—to say nothing of other things—primarily because of shortfalls in the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs due to chronic mismanagement? How can the Secretary of State expect emissions reductions from the UK housing stock when the low carbon
buildings programme, the capital grants scheme for energy efficiency, has been underfunded since its inception and is now being scrapped?
How can the Government expect the development of a renewable technology economy in Britain when they do not offer the industry any long-term market confidence? First they tried to U-turn and squash the Merton rule for microgeneration technologies; then they tried to wiggle out of the EU 2020 renewable energy target. The Government have failed to support plans to build the world’s first carbon capture and storage power station in Peterhead, opting instead for yet another round of dithering and consultation, followed by a competition. It is not that they are headed in the wrong direction; it is just that they cannot move fast enough. We reject that dithering, delay and incompetence. We reject institutional tinkering. What we really need are dynamic solutions to climate change. We need more vision, more ambition, more conviction and more delivery. We need robust policies that will deliver real change on the ground and drive dynamic industrial change in the economy.
In December, David Cameron announced our party policy to introduce feed-in tariffs—[Hon. Members: “Who?”] My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) announced the tariffs—a mechanism that has resulted in the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs across Europe. That policy could do the same for the UK by providing long-term market certainty to the British microgeneration industry and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey noted, it could greatly enhance our energy security and lower our carbon emissions in the process.
Our feed-in tariff policies are just the beginning. This afternoon at Imperial college, the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), announced three more policies that will energise UK plc to start reducing our emissions on a significant scale while helping to grow our economy by creating policy initiatives at three ends of the market. The first is in start-up and venture capital. We have some of the finest research institutions and universities in the world, yet in Britain today it is much too difficult to turn bright ideas into viable businesses. Too many technologies have failed to reach the market, getting caught in the gap between a great idea and a viable company. That is why we announced plans today to establish green technology incubators across the UK that will allow more ideas from our finest minds to become reality.
Secondly, Britain is privileged to have access to some of the world’s finest financial minds and largest investors in the City of London. The Conservatives recognise what an enormous economic opportunity it would be for Britain if we could harness that talent and entrepreneurial spirit and direct it towards the dynamic de-carbonisation of the global economy. To that end, we have announced our intention to establish, in conjunction with the London stock exchange, the world’s first dedicated trading market for companies focused on green technology. It will have its own listing criteria and its own set of principles and regulations. The green environmental market is designed to help London become the world’s leading centre for the listing and trading of companies in the field of environmental technology. The GEM will build on the alternative investment market’s success in attracting
green technology companies, but will have its own distinct identity. That new market will help to drive the unprecedented levels of green investment required to transform Britain’s economy. Only by unleashing the full potential of London’s capital markets will we meet our ambitious goals and get the substantive investment that we require.
Thirdly, the shadow Chancellor today announced our intention to introduce green individual savings accounts, which will enable the public to save more than they are currently allowed to, tax-free, provided that the funds are invested only in the most progressive, environmentally friendly companies. The green ISAs—or GISAs, as some bright chap has named them—will engage the public in climate change issues in a new way and show them clearly the economic benefits of green investment. By providing lucrative new sources of investment, GISAs will create a race to the top, incentivising businesses to adopt environmentally friendly policies. At the moment, only 39 per cent. of FTSE 350 companies account for their carbon effectively. Hopefully the proposal will incentivise them and drive them all to do so.
It is policies and incentives such as those that will allow Britain to deliver on our climate change commitments. They will deliver dynamic industrial change and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the economy. We are not afraid of change, and we are the only party that can deliver it.
4.6 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Phil Woolas): I concur with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that this has been a very good debate. The knowledge and experience displayed in contributions from Members on both sides of the House on the issue of climate change has been impressive. The Opposition spokesmen’s points about the treaty were less impressive. I suppose that congratulations are due to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle on reading out the shadow Chancellor’s press release; he did it eloquently and efficiently. Unfortunately, as ever, things are different when one scratches the surface.
Green incubators are a good idea: we have them. We have had them at the university of Manchester for donkey’s years, and have been spending hundreds of millions of pounds on them. I suppose that the idea of share listing is good. The green savings account is a good idea, and I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for putting it forward. However, I do not want to be churlish; the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is doing a good job of trying to square a circle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out.
The Conservatives have a problem. The debate has been on the amendment in the name of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The debate has presented us with a graphic display of the Conservative party’s age-old problem of what to do about the issue of Europe. How is that problem to be squared with the Conservative party’s new-found adherence to green policies? The Conservatives have been exposed; they are in a pickle. On the one hand, they like the six words on climate change that are in the treaty, but on the other they do not want the treaty. Later this afternoon, some of them
will support the six words, and some of them will oppose them. Others want more than six words, and others still do not want any of the words. Most of them will vote against the whole treaty, even though they like the six words, but some of them will vote for it. All of them are confused.
The fact is that if the six words, and the other words to which hon. Friends have referred, are simply “tinkering”, why are the Conservatives proposing a referendum on the treaty? The treaty is either developing the European Union and addressing points of principle, in which case they should have a referendum, or it is not, in which case they are wasting our time.
Mr. Graham Stuart: The simple point is that on climate change, the treaty makes no difference. On many other issues, it makes a great deal of difference.
Mr. Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that confirmation that the treaty of Lisbon is not a radical giving-up of our sovereignty, but merely adds a few words.
The Opposition spokesman accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of cynicism. How anybody could describe my right hon. Friend as cynical is beyond imagination, as anybody who knows him well would say, but the hon. Gentleman accused us of cynicism in calling the debate. He said that we were trying to mask the other issues and that six hours should not have been allocated to the debate on climate change this afternoon. The Opposition’s amendment to the business motion on 28 January proposed six hours of debate on climate change, so how he can accuse the Government of cynicism is beyond me.
Let me address some of the substantial policy and political issues. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) correctly stated that it was wrong to say that the scientific debate was over. There are some who still disagree. Across the world, all countries, with the exception of Burma, now accept the scientific evidence of man-made climate change as a reality. However, I am delighted to inform the House about members of the flat earth society who still deny the existence of man-made climate change. One of them is Roger Helmer, Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands for the Conservative party. Another is the President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus—although not, I hasten to add, the Government of the Czech Republic.
What is the association of those two members of the flat earth society with the Opposition? Mr. Roger Helmer, a renowned climate change denier, said in 2007 that
“climate change consensus is a journalistic fiction”.
He told the European Parliament in May 2007 that
“it would be cheaper to relocate the population of the Maldives than to implement the sort of emissions reductions that are proposed”.
Who is the Conservative party putting on to the temporary committee on climate change in the European Parliament? Mr. Roger Helmer. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like having their divisions exposed. I will answer the points of substance.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister will now address his remarks to the amendment and the treaty.
Mr. Woolas: I take your instruction, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just getting to the partnership between the Conservative party and the Czech President, but I will pass on that.
Greenhouse gases in this country have gone down since 1997 by 7 per cent. Part of the reason why the United Kingdom provides such strong leadership in the United Nations conversations is that while our greenhouse gas emissions have gone down, our gross domestic product has gone up, thus showing the world, along with other European Union countries, that the lesson of Sir Nicholas—now Lord—Stern’s report that the two tracks can be decoupled is alive and well and evident in the UK.
Our record on these matters is a proud one. The Opposition spokesman said that there had been inaction. He failed to mention the carbon emissions reduction targets—the £1.5 billion that has been mobilised to transform and retrofit UK homes. He failed to mention the climate change agreements or the carbon reduction commitments to be introduced in the UK next year. He failed to mention the raft of measures that have been put in place so that we reduce the emissions in this country and so that we can, in co-operation with our partners in the European Union, provide the leadership that some Opposition Members have been graceful enough to acknowledge.
On no issue is the need for international co-operation greater than on climate change. On no issue do we need the European Union more than on climate change. That is why it is important that the treaty of Lisbon recognises that— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentlemen jeering from a sedentary position have to reconcile their attempt to con the British public, by trying to rebrand their party as the green party, with their opposition to the treaty of Lisbon.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 345.
AYES
Afriyie, Adam
Ainsworth, Mr. Peter
Amess, Mr. David
Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James
Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Baldry, Tony
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr. John
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Bercow, John
Binley, Mr. Brian
Bone, Mr. Peter
Boswell, Mr. Tim
Brady, Mr. Graham
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Brokenshire, James
Browning, Angela
Burns, Mr. Simon
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burt, Alistair
Butterfill, Sir John
Cameron, rh Mr. David
Cash, Mr. William
Clappison, Mr. James
Clark, Greg
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Conway, Derek
Cormack, Sir Patrick
Cox, Mr. Geoffrey
Crabb, Mr. Stephen
Davies, David T.C. (Monmouth)
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice and Howden)
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Dodds, Mr. Nigel
Dorrell, rh Mr. Stephen
Dorries, Mrs. Nadine
Duddridge, James
Duncan, Alan
Dunne, Mr. Philip
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Evans, Mr. Nigel
Evennett, Mr. David
Fabricant, Michael
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Field, Mr. Mark
Fox, Dr. Liam
Francois, Mr. Mark
Fraser, Mr. Christopher
Gale, Mr. Roger
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Gauke, Mr. David
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Goodwill, Mr. Robert
Gove, Michael
Gray, Mr. James
Grayling, Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Greenway, Mr. John
Grieve, Mr. Dominic
Hague, rh Mr. William
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Hayes, Mr. John
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, Nick
Hermon, Lady
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Horam, Mr. John
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
Hurd, Mr. Nick
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
Jones, Mr. David
Kawczynski, Daniel
Key, Robert
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Leigh, Mr. Edward
Letwin, rh Mr. Oliver
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Lidington, Mr. David
Lilley, rh Mr. Peter
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew
Maclean, rh David
Main, Anne
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Maples, Mr. John
May, rh Mrs. Theresa
McCrea, Dr. William
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Mercer, Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, Mr. Andrew
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Mundell, David
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr. Brooks
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, Mr. James
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Pickles, Mr. Eric
Prisk, Mr. Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Randall, Mr. John
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Robinson, rh Mr. Peter
Rosindell, Andrew
Ruffley, Mr. David
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, Grant
Shepherd, Mr. Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, David
Simpson, Mr. Keith
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Spicer, Sir Michael
Spink, Bob
Stanley, rh Sir John
Steen, Mr. Anthony
Streeter, Mr. Gary
Stuart, Mr. Graham
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Swire, Mr. Hugo
Syms, Mr. Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Vaizey, Mr. Edward
Vara, Mr. Shailesh
Viggers, Peter
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Walker, Mr. Charles
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Walter, Mr. Robert
Waterson, Mr. Nigel
Watkinson, Angela
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Wiggin, Bill
Wilshire, Mr. David
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Wilson, Sammy
Winterton, Sir Nicholas
Wright, Jeremy
Yeo, Mr. Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr. Richard Benyon and
Mr. Crispin Blunt
NOES
Ainger, Nick
Alexander, Danny
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Anderson, Janet
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Baker, Norman
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barrett, John
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Battle, rh John
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Miss Anne
Beith, rh Mr. Alan
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr. Joe
Berry, Roger
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blunkett, rh Mr. David
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Bradshaw, Mr. Ben
Brake, Tom
Breed, Mr. Colin
Brennan, Kevin
Brooke, Annette
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Browne, Mr. Jeremy
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burgon, Colin
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Burt, Lorely
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Byrne, Mr. Liam
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Caborn, rh Mr. Richard
Cairns, David
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Caton, Mr. Martin
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Challen, Colin
Chapman, Ben
Chaytor, Mr. David
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clarke, rh Mr. Kenneth
Clegg, rh Mr. Nick
Clelland, Mr. David
Clwyd, rh Ann
Cohen, Harry
Connarty, Michael
Cook, Frank
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, Mr. David
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
David, Mr. Wayne
Davies, Mr. Dai
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Denham, rh Mr. John
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobbin, Jim
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Ennis, Jeff
Etherington, Bill
Farrelly, Paul
Farron, Tim
Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Mr. Don
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
George, Andrew
George, rh Mr. Bruce
Gibson, Dr. Ian
Gidley, Sandra
Gilroy, Linda
Goggins, Paul
Goldsworthy, Julia
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Grogan, Mr. John
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr. Peter
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. Fabian
Hancock, Mr. Mike
Hanson, rh Mr. David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Dr. Evan
Harvey, Nick
Havard, Mr. Dai
Healey, John
Heath, Mr. David
Hemming, John
Henderson, Mr. Doug
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Holmes, Paul
Hood, Mr. Jim
Hoon, rh Mr. Geoffrey
Hope, Phil
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, David
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Howells, Dr. Kim
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Hughes, rh Beverley
Hughes, Simon
Huhne, Chris
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hunter, Mark
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Ingram, rh Mr. Adam
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Lynne
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Keetch, Mr. Paul
Kelly, rh Ruth
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Khan, Mr. Sadiq
Kidney, Mr. David
Kilfoyle, Mr. Peter
Knight, Jim
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Lamb, Norman
Laws, Mr. David
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leech, Mr. John
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew
MacShane, rh Mr. Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Malik, Mr. Shahid
Mallaber, Judy
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Marshall, Mr. David
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCarthy, Kerry
McDonagh, Siobhain
McFadden, Mr. Pat
McFall, rh John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, rh Mr. Tony
Meale, Mr. Alan
Merron, Gillian
Michael, rh Alun
Milburn, rh Mr. Alan
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Moran, Margaret
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Julie
Morley, rh Mr. Elliot
Mudie, Mr. George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Norris, Dan
O'Brien, Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Oaten, Mr. Mark
Olner, Mr. Bill
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pope, Mr. Greg
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Prescott, rh Mr. John
Price, Adam
Primarolo, rh Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Pugh, Dr. John
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Purnell, rh James
Rammell, Bill
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Andy
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Reid, Mr. Alan
Rennie, Willie
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, Angus
Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey
Rogerson, Dan
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Rowen, Paul
Roy, Mr. Frank
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Bob
Russell, Christine
Ryan, rh Joan
Salter, Martin
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr. Virendra
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Short, rh Clare
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Simpson, Alan
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andy
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Angela E. (Basildon)
Smith, Geraldine
Smith, John
Smith, Sir Robert
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stewart, Ian
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Stunell, Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry
Swinson, Jo
Taylor, Ms Dari
Taylor, David
Teather, Sarah
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Thurso, John
Timms, rh Mr. Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Truswell, Mr. Paul
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Twigg, Derek
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Watson, Mr. Tom
Watts, Mr. Dave
Webb, Steve
Weir, Mr. Mike
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, Malcolm
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mark
Williams, Mr. Roger
Williams, Stephen
Wills, Mr. Michael
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Wood, Mike
Woodward, rh Mr. Shaun
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wyatt, Derek
Younger-Ross, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr. Bob Blizzard and
Liz Blackman
Question accordingly negatived.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |