§ '.—Where a local authority declares an air quality management area in accordance with section 83(1) of the Environment Act 1995, it may apply to the Secretary of State to direct the Highways Agency to take such measures as the authority has calculated to be effective in reducing air pollution, from specified roads administered by the Agency, in order to meet national air quality objectives within its area.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Don Foster
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
After the excitement of discussing the future of National Air Traffic Services and then the future of national security, we come to the important issue of air quality. All hon. Members will be aware of the concern in many quarters about the quality of our air. Some estimates, not least from the British Medical Association, tell us that as many as 24,000 people die unnecessarily each year because of air pollution caused predominantly by the exhaust fumes from vehicles on our roads.
Air quality and its improvement are of considerable importance in the effort not only to reduce the number of lives lost but to improve the quality of life for those millions of people who suffer from asthma, which is again associated very directly with fumes from vehicle exhausts.
In Committee, we were delighted that some positive announcements were made by the Government, not least by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—or "St. Reatham", as we came to know him. However, I was disappointed that he did not accept some of our amendments in respect of low emission zones or vehicle emission testing.
New clause 6 is another attempt to persuade the Government to move a little further. It would give local authorities a more direct way of getting the compliance of 775 the Highways Agency in measures to reduce air pollution. It would allow a local authority to apply to the Secretary of State to direct the Highways Agency to take any measures that the local authority considered to be effective in reducing air pollution from roads in its area that were administered by the Highways Agency.
In Committee, the Minister was quite positive about the broad principle of improving air quality, but there are a number of matters on which we seek further commitments. I have three questions of which I have given the Minister some advance notice, so I hope that he will respond positively.
The first relates specifically to the work that local authorities have to do in developing their local transport plans. Hon. Members will be aware that the plans have to be completed by the end of June. However, when local authorities draw up their plans they do not know whether the Government will require them to declare air quality management areas. As the Minister knows only too well, the deadline for those is not until October. If the Government subsequently require local authorities to introduce air quality management areas that might include a low emissions zone or roadside emission testing procedures, can the Minister confirm that the enforcement activities that will be required will be considered to be consistent with the aims of the local transport plan that will have to have been produced within the next few days?
Secondly, the Minister agreed that there would be some merit in extending the powers of traffic wardens so that they would have the ability to stop vehicles and require them to have their emissions tested. The Minister thought that that was a good idea in principle, but said that he did not want to agree to it without further consultation, particularly with the Motorists Forum. The Minister will be aware that that consultation has now been completed and that the forum has sent him a detailed report, so I hope that he can tell us when he expects to make a decision on whether to extend the powers of traffic wardens. In that regard, how will local authorities be expected to pay for emissions testing?
In Committee, the Minister helpfully agreed to extend the possible uses of moneys raised by congestion charging or workplace parking charging to offset some of the costs of emissions testing. However, some local authorities may choose not to use the powers in the Bill to introduce such charging. What assistance will the Government give to local authorities that wish to introduce more stringent emissions testing, but not the additional powers?
On a number of occasions in Committee, Labour Members raised the point that when a local authority is required to develop strategies to reduce air pollution in its area, some of the measures that it would like to take are outside its control, not least because there is clear evidence that many emissions are likely to come from roads that are outside the local authority's control, especially trunk roads and motorways. If a local authority is required to reduce air pollution in its area, and yet has no control over the activities that take place on trunk roads or motorways, it is powerless to achieve the very objectives that the Government are rightly setting it.
What can the local authority do about that? The obvious step is to work in conjunction with the Highways Agency, which is in a position to do something. The agency has 776 said that it is anxious to work with local authorities in developing local transport plans and other strategies to reduce pollution and congestion. One would think that everything in the garden was rosy, and that the local authority could say to the Highways Agency, "We have a lot of problems with pollution from your roads. Will you do something about it?" One would hope that the answer would always be yes. The sad truth is that that is not always the case.
I know that the Minister is very well briefed on the problem in Sheffield. The local authority wanted to reduce pollution in the Tinsley area of Sheffield, but the main concern was pollution from the M 1. Sheffield council asked the Highways Agency for help in reducing the speed limit on that section of the motorway. The evidence is that such a move would reduce pollution and, as a by-product, reduce congestion. As the Minister knows, despite all the evidence of speed limit reductions on the M21 reducing congestion and pollution, the Highways Agency was unwilling to accede to Sheffield council's request.
The new clause would ensure that the local authority could at least say to the Secretary of State, "If you agree with our proposals, will you make it a requirement on the Highways Agency to enact them?" In that way, we would have joined-up thinking between local government, central Government and the Highways Agency. They would all work together with the aim of reducing congestion and air pollution.
The Government, and in particular the Minister, have given helpful indications of their intention to take this further. However, it is about time that the Government showed a real commitment to the issue by including in the Bill measures that would make this proposal a reality, rather than promising that that will happen at some time in the future.
I hope that the Government are prepared to accept the new clause.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill)
I would like to make a few general observations about the new clause, moved so eloquently by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), before dealing with his specific questions.
The new clause would allow the Secretary of State to direct the Highways Agency—which I shall refer to as the HA—to take specific measures, such as reducing speed limits on trunk roads and motorways, with the aim of reducing air pollution within air quality management areas—which I shall refer to as AQMAs. Those are areas identified by the local authority where the air quality objectives, as prescribed in the air quality regulations 2000, are unlikely to be met.
Where an AQMA has been designated, the local authority has to draw up an action plan setting out the measures it intends to take in pursuit of air quality objectives. Where the actions needed to improve air quality in an AQMA are outside the local authority's responsibility, such as the case cited by the hon. Gentleman—the reduction of pollution from a trunk road and motorway—the local authority's plan would have to show what action would need to be taken by the HA.
I can fully understand the principles behind the new clause. Local authorities will no doubt have concerns about working towards achieving the air quality objectives 777 in their areas, especially where the action required is outside their control. I also agree that it is important for local authorities to have the full support of the HA when they designate their AQMAs and draw up action plans.
However, the provision is unnecessary. It would allow the Secretary of State to direct the HA to take action, including imposing slower speed limits on trunk roads or motorways within an air quality management area. However, the Secretary of State already has powers, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to regulate speed on trunk roads and motorways; that is carried out by the HA.
The HA already has a role to play within the local air quality management—or LAQM—process. First, it is a statutory consultee under schedule 11 of the Environment Act 1995. Local authorities therefore have to consult the agency on their air quality reviews and assessments, their proposals for AQMAs and their AQMA action plans. The HA has also provided a technical advice document for local authorities to use when carrying out the review and assessment process.
Secondly, the HA will have to work alongside those local authorities that designate air quality management areas covering trunk roads and motorways where traffic levels are the main contributors to local air pollution problems. The HA is committed to working with local authorities, and is encouraging local authorities to set up small working parties, which would include the relevant HA area and route managers, to identify any possible HA measures that may be taken in pursuit of the air quality objectives.
The HA could take several measures in pursuit of the air quality objectives in AQMAs. For example, better use could be made of the existing messaging service on motorway gantries, such as an advanced warning system of incidents on motorways. The HA is also working with transport operators to encourage people to use public transport.
On the specific issue of introducing slower speed limits on motorways, the HA is not opposed to that in principle, but would want to consider each case on its merits. In considering any such measures on its roads, the HA would have to have regard to the following criteria: safety; economy; integration; environment and accessibility.
All new trunk roads are now subject to environmental impact assessment in accordance with an EU Directive. That assessment includes considering air quality impacts evaluated under the air quality strategy. Local authorities are always consulted on any such proposals.
It is evident that the HA is already fully involved in the LAQM process; it will be working closely with local authorities during the action plan stage to identify action that it can take, bearing in mind the cost-effectiveness of those measures. Furthermore, should local authorities experience any difficulties in liaising with the HA, we would encourage them to approach my Department for further advice.
I therefore hope that the House will agree that, although the principles behind the new clause are to be welcomed, it would not be appropriate to accept it for the reasons that I have outlined. However, before I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it, I shall deal with the questions 778 that he raised. I am grateful for the notice that he has given me of the questions. That reflects the extremely close working relationship that we developed in Committee over many hours and months and the singular experience that he and I had in a lonely Westminster radio studio in the middle of the night on Thursday 4 May and Friday 5 May.
First, the hon. Gentleman asked whether I could confirm that, where air quality management areas are declared, enforcement activities will be considered to be consistent with the objectives of the authority's local transport plan. We acknowledge the fact that local authorities are having to complete their local transport plans before they have completed their reviews and assessments. The majority, however, should by now have a clear view of any major local air quality problems and their likely causes.
In our revised local air quality management statutory guidance entitled, "Air Quality and Transport", which was issued to local authorities on 6 March 2000, we have advised local authorities to ensure that their local transport plans contain all the air quality information that is available at the time, even if it is only provisional. Where possible, they should also reflect the likely designation of any AQMAs. It is important for local authorities to make sure that the LAQM is closely linked into the local transport process, particularly because the plans will be judged by their links to air quality issues.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about authorities that declare air quality management areas, which they are under a statutory obligation to do. He asked whether I would make additional funds available to authorities to fund the designation of AQMAs and the development and enforcement of statutory air quality action plans.
We recognise that local authorities' air quality management duties have financial implications. Since 1997–98, we have made provision in the annual revenue support grant settlement to assist the running costs associated with those duties, including undertaking the air quality reviews and assessments, designating any air quality management areas, drawing up action plans and undertaking public consultation exercises. At the same time, we introduced a programme of supplementary credit approvals—that is to say additional borrowing powers—to support the necessary capital expenditure on air quality reviews and assessments. More than £12 million has been awarded so far. Letters inviting SCA bids for expenditure in 2000–01 were sent to authorities in February.
On the development and enforcement of AQMA action plans, let me say that local authorities can use their existing powers and controls, such as local air pollution control, domestic smoke control, transport and land use planning, to implement their action plans for achieving the air quality objectives. Authorities may also, for example, wish to use the local transport plan process to bid for funding for transport projects that aim to reduce transport-related emissions and improve air quality. Local authorities declaring smoke control areas may apply for SCAs to cover the necessary costs of conversions in domestic premises.
§ Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)
I have listened carefully to the Minister's arguments about the powers of local authorities. Will he help me on a point of detail? Do local authorities have any powers to promote public awareness 779 about the nature of the difference between old and new vehicles and about the contribution that newer vehicles with newer technology can make to improving overall air quality in a particular location?
§ Mr. Hill
I shall be entirely candid with the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that specific funding lines are available for that purpose, but every local authority has ample local financial resources. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, being a resident of Lambeth during his sojourn in the capital, many local authorities produce a range of publications in which they raise such issues with the public. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to such publicity.
On funding for AQMAs, it is up to local authorities to ensure that the measures proposed in their plans are proportionate and cost-effective. Some of the actions needed to improve air quality may lie outside the local authority's responsibility, and it will have to work closely with other bodies, such as the Environment and Highways Agencies.
I turn now to the query of the hon. Member for Bath about the timing of conclusions on the Motorists' Forum's recommendations and the possible consultations on extending emissions tests and additional powers. I am grateful to the Motorists' Forum, which represents a broad range of interests, for its work on this matter. We are actively considering its recommendations and will announce our decisions in due course. My Home Office colleagues and I propose to consider additional powers.
The hon. Member for Bath raised the interesting case of Sheffield, where, last Thursday, Labour increased its share of the vote, but the Liberal Democrats increased their number of seats on the council. That is a consequence of the first-past-the-post system which the hon. Gentleman may not wholly deprecate.
I shall correct the version of events in Sheffield that the hon. Gentleman related to the House. Sheffield city council suggested to the Highways Agency that it should impose a 50 mph speed limit on the M1 where it passes through the Meadowhall area, which colleagues assure me is called Tinsley. Sheffield had calculated that if speed limits on the motorway were reduced from 80 mph to 50 mph where it passed through the city, there would be a significant reduction in pollution. The optimum speed for fuel consumption and emissions is at a constant speed between 40 and 50 mph.
§ Mr. Don Foster
Lest it be thought that a Transport Minister is not aware of the motorway speed limit, I give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to correct the record immediately because I am sure that when he said that the speed limit was 80 mph, he meant 70 mph.
§ Mr. Hill
It is a matter of public record that I am not a driver and have never learned to drive a car, so these matters are not always at the forefront of my mind, but I willingly accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. I shall now proceed to correct his version of events in Sheffield.
Contrary to the reports, the council's suggestion was not refused by the Highways Agency without consideration. However, the issue was not taken forward 780 after the agency pointed out that due to the severe congestion on the M1 in that area at peak periods, speeds were already down to less than 50 mph.
If speed reduction measures were to be introduced, we would need to be sure that the benefits of improved air quality would outweigh the economic impact of lower speed limits on journey times. Emissions from vehicles on the trunk road network are usually more significant for air quality in urban areas. Traffic on such roads is unlikely to be travelling at the legal speed limit—the point raised by the hon. Gentleman—and, especially in congested areas, will cause far more damage to the environment in terms of emissions than if it were travelling at the legal speed limit.
With those explanations and responses, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.
§ Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire)
Following on from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and the Minister's saying that, if district councils or town councils want advice on how to interpret the air quality rules, he will be happy to provide it, I rise to raise a specific case in my constituency: that of the extremely congested A5 route through the centre of Dunstable.
The Minister will be aware of our lengthy campaign to get a bypass. As long as there is no bypass, air quality worsens. An additional cause for urgency is that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has designated Luton and Dunstable as a growth area for housing; therefore, more people will be affected if the problem continues. Furthermore, without the provision of the bypass, 11 Dunstable schools, with hundreds of children, that lie close to the A5 will continue to endure the massive pollution generated by crawling, stop-start traffic. Similarly, many houses are affected by the problem. The benefit equation is, therefore, massively in favour of the bypass being built.
We have campaigned for many years to get the bypass built. I hope that the Minister will give a favourable hearing to councils if, following Thursday's elections, they approach him asking for advice on whether they can use air quality rules to hasten the building of the bypass. The Minister might wonder what last Thursday has to do with the new clause. The fact is that, during the district and town council elections in Dunstable, only the Conservative party campaigned for a full bypass; Labour and the Liberal Democrats have always been uncertain, even wobbly, on the issue. The result of Thursday's poll was that every single ward in Dunstable returned a Conservative district councillor; and a town council comprising 17 Labour and three Conservative councillors was transformed into one comprising 17 Conservatives and three Labour representatives. The people of Dunstable have given a clear and massive endorsement to an early start being made to the bypass, not least on grounds of air quality.
I make those points to the Minister in the hope that my words, and the council's representations, will cause him to look most favourably on starting a public inquiry into the bypass—not least after what has been said during this important debate about people being badly affected by poor air quality resulting from massive traffic congestion, which we certainly have in Dunstable.
§ Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury)
Conditions in my constituency are not untypical of those in many shire 781 county constituencies. There is no motorway, but many arterial routes and trunk roads traverse the constituency, and many of my constituents are affected by the traffic passing along those routes. The Minister will be familiar with the case, as, on behalf of my constituents, I have been a prolific letter writer on the subjects of speed and safety on the A41, the A49 and the A51, along with the less fast, but tighter and more difficult to negotiate green route that enters my constituency through Audlem in the southernmost part.
There is some debate about maps and whether many continental drivers of articulated lorries see on the map the green route, which appears to be the most direct route, and so come through my constituency, causing road congestion problems. However, my argument tonight focuses on the relationship between speed, air quality and new regulations that will permit lorry weights to be increased from 40 to 44 tonnes. There is real concern centring on arterial routes, such as the A49. Lorry drivers are equipped with mobile communications equipment, so by the time they go over the Thelwall viaduct on the M6 coming south, they know whether there is congestion around Birmingham. If there is, they leave the M6 and come down the A49. through Warrington and through the constituency of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), before entering my constituency. The lorries then plough through my constituency before joining the M54.
The lorries do not follow direct motorway routes and, as we well know, air quality relates to lorries getting up to speed. On a non-motorway route, there are many bends and hills and, especially on the A49, sharp bends to negotiate. Lorries slow down, particularly owing to their added weight. They then have to get back up to speed; they are keen to travel, when possible, at the maximum speed permitted.
I hope that the Minister will take into account that issue in assessing the impact of the increase in lorry weights, given the nature of the roads on which lorries habitually travel partly because of congestion, particularly around Birmingham on the M6 leading up to the junction with the M5. As the many letters that the Minister and I have exchanged will testify, that has a real impact on my constituents.
I am not sure that the new clause would address the problem, but I listened carefully to the Minister. In assessing air quality measures relating to the speed and routing of lorries, it will be important to take into account measurements on lorries' ability to maintain speed. That in itself can lead to many more air pollutant quotas—however one measures it.
I urge the Minister to consider incentives for lorries once again to travel on the main motorway network, as that would address many of the concerns and alleviate many of the serious and legitimate worries of my constituents, many of whom live on those routes. Owing to the position of the original tracks, the houses are perilously close to the road, resulting in concern and danger.
§ Mr. Don Foster
If the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) studied new clause 6 closely, he would see that it would bring him a great deal of comfort. It would 782 enable his local authority to feel confident that it could work closely with the Highways Agency to consider the issues of speed on motorways in his area. If the Highways Agency were not prepared so to work with the local authority, there would be an opportunity to apply to the Secretary of State to direct that close co-operation.
I am absolutely delighted with the Minister's introductory remarks. I welcome his description of my remarks as eloquent. I was slightly taken aback by his description of our alleged close working relationship and somewhat surprised that he was prepared to refer to the time that we spent together late at night in a radio studio. He spent two hours defending the indefensible as further election disasters befell the party that he represents, while I was able to celebrate the success of my new and welcome hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley).
The Minister acknowledged my generosity in giving him advance notice of some of the questions that I would ask and, indeed, some of the points that I would raise, including reference to the situation in Sheffield. It was clear that he was not even aware of the speed limits on motorways, let alone the part of Sheffield to which we referred—Tinsley.
The Minister was not as thoroughly briefed as one might have hoped because he suggested that the Highways Agency did not want to introduce the speed limit proposed by the council because of congestion in the area at peak times. I hope that, when he checks the information with which he was provided, he will note that Sheffield council suggested to the Highways Agency a variable speed limit, as on the M25, to take into account that very concern.
The problem is that, despite the fact that Sheffield council has made that proposition, there is still not an opportunity for it and the Highways Agency to work together. The council has nobody to whom it can turn to resolve that dispute, and that is why the new clause is so important.
In his response, the Minister chose to adopt the technique of using acronyms. I do not blame him for that, as it speeds up the debate. I am well aware that, when an LA is working on its LAQM, which of course is part of the Government's NAQS and, as the Minister rightly said, is related to the LA's LTP, and could include the option of an LEZ, although the Minister has not yet given approval for LEZs, the LA must have the full support of the HA, as the Minister said, not least if the LA goes on to develop an AQMA.
Without new clause 6, there is no guarantee that the LA will get the full support of the HA. The Minister suggested that, if the LA is unhappy, it should seek advice from the DETR. However, it is unlikely that anything will happen, as the case in Sheffield demonstrates so eloquently.
§ Mr. Atkinson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who produced a tour de force of acronyms. How would the new clause help constituents of mine, who live on a trunk road with a village on either side? The local 783 authority wants a bypass there. If the local authority declares it a special air quality management area, what will the Highways Agency do? Will it be forced to build the bypass, which it otherwise would not?
§ Mr. Foster
The hon. Gentleman refers to an AQMA, as I am sure that he knows. One way of improving his chances of success would be to turn it into an LEZ. He makes a fair point. There will be occasions when a local authority wants to achieve certain aims and wishes to get the support of the Highways Agency, but the Highways Agency disagrees. The new clause would allow the local authority to see whether the Secretary of State was willing to support it in that endeavour and, if so, to apply to him to instruct the Highways Agency to carry out the necessary work.
In the hon. Gentleman's example, it is unlikely that, even if the local authority wanted a bypass, the Secretary of State would give his approval and make it a requirement on the Highways Agency. However, there are many other cases—I gave one example in the Tinsley area of Sheffield—where the joint working of the local authority and the Highways Agency could have been strengthened by the new clause. I am disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to write it into the Bill. It is an important measure, and I hope that the House will not object too much if I press the motion to a Division.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 342.786
|Division No. 188]||[10.48 pm|
|Allan, Richard||Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)|
|Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy|
|Ballard, Jackie||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Beggs, Roy||Livsey, Richard|
|Brake, Tom||Llwyd, Elfyn|
|Brand, Dr Peter||Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert|
|Breed, Colin||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Moore, Michael|
|Burnett, John||Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)|
|Burstow, Paul||Oaten, Mark|
|Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)||Öpik, Lembit|
|Chidgey, David||Russell, Bob (Colchester)|
|Cotter, Brian||Sanders, Adrian|
|Davey, Edward (Kingston)||Swinney, John|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret||Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)|
|Fearn, Ronnie||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Tonge, Dr Jenny|
|George, Andrew (St Ives)||Tyler, Paul|
|Gidley, Ms Sandra||Webb, Steve|
|Gorrie, Donald||Welsh, Andrew|
|Harris, Dr Evan||Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd|
|Harvey, Nick||Willis, Phil|
|Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)||Sir Robert Smith and|
|Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)||Mr. Andrew Stunell.|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Ashton, Joe|
|Ainger, Nick||Atkins, Charlotte|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Banks, Tony|
|Alexander, Douglas||Barnes, Harry|
|Allen, Graham||Battle, John|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Bayley, Hugh|
|Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)||Beard, Nigel|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Denham, John|
|Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)||Dismore, Andrew|
|Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)||Dobbin, Jim|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Doran, Frank|
|Berry, Roger||Dowd, Jim|
|Best, Harold||Drew, David|
|Betts, Clive||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Blackman, Liz||Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)|
|Blizzard, Bob||Edwards, Huw|
|Boateng, Rt Hon Paul||Efford, Clive|
|Borrow, David||Ellman, Mrs Louise|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Ennis, Jeff|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Field, Rt Hon Frank|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Fisher, Mark|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)||Fitzpatrick, Jim|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna|
|Browne, Desmond||Flint, Caroline|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Flynn, Paul|
|Burden, Richard||Follett, Barbara|
|Burgon, Colin||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Butler, Mrs Christine||Foster, Michael J (Worcester)|
|Byers, Rt Hon Stephen||Foulkes, George|
|Caborn, Rt Hon Richard||Fyfe, Maria|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Galbraith, Sam|
|Cann, Jamie||Gapes, Mike|
|Caplin, Ivor||Gardiner, Barry|
|Casale, Roger||George, Bruce (Walsall S)|
|Caton, Martin||Gibson, Dr Ian|
|Cawsey, Ian||Gilroy, Mrs Linda|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Chaytor, David||Godsiff, Roger|
|Church, Ms Judith||Goggins, Paul|
|Clapham, Michael||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)||Gordon, Mrs Eileen|
|Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)||Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)||Grogan, John|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)||Hall, Patrick (Bedford)|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)|
|Clelland, David||Hanson, David|
|Clwyd, Ann||Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet|
|Coaker, Vernon||Heal, Mrs Sylvia|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Healey, John|
|Coleman, Iain||Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)|
|Colman, Tony||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Connarty, Michael||Hepburn, Stephen|
|Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)||Heppell, John|
|Corbett, Robin||Hesford, Stephen|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hewitt, Ms Patricia|
|Corston, Jean||Hill, Keith|
|Cousins, Jim||Hinchliffe, David|
|Cox, Tom||Hodge, Ms Margaret|
|Cranston, Ross||Hoey, Kate|
|Crausby, David||Home Robertson, John|
|Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)||Hood, Jimmy|
|Cryer, John (Hornchurch)||Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Cummings, John||Hope, Phil|
|Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)||Hopkins, Kelvin|
|Howarth, Alan (Newport E)|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire||Howells, Dr Kim|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hoyle, Lindsay|
|Darling, Rt Hon Alistair||Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)|
|Darvill, Keith||Humble, Mrs Joan|
|Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)||Hurst, Alan|
|Davidson, Ian||Hutton, John|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Iddon, Dr Brian|
|Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)||Illsley, Eric|
|Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)||Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)|
|Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)|
|Dawson, Hilton||Jamieson, David|
|Dean, Mrs Janet||Jenkins, Brian|
|Johnson Alan (Hull W & Hessle)||Naysmith, Dr Doug|
|Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)||Norris, Dan|
|O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)|
|Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)||O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)|
|Jones, Helen (Warrington N)||O'Hara, Eddie|
|Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)||O'Neill, Martin|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)||Organ, Mrs Diana|
|Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa||Osborne, Ms Sandra|
|Keeble, Ms Sally||Palmer, Dr Nick|
|Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)||Pearson, Ian|
|Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)||Pendry, Tom|
|Kemp, Fraser||Perham, Ms Linda|
|Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)||Pickthall, Colin|
|Khabra, Piara S||Pike, Peter L|
|Kidney, David||Plaskitt, James|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Pollard, Kerry|
|King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)||Pond, Chris|
|King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)||Pope, Greg|
|Kumar, Dr Ashok||Pound, Stephen|
|Ladyman, Dr Stephen||Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)|
|Lawrence, Mrs Jackie||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Lepper, David||Prescott, Rt Hon John|
|Leslie, Christopher||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Levitt, Tom||Prosser, Gwyn|
|Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)||Purchase, Ken|
|Lewis, Terry (Worsley)||Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce|
|Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen||Quinn, Lawrie|
|Linton, Martin||Radice, Rt Hon Giles|
|Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)||Raynsford, Nick|
|Lock, David||Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)|
|Love, Andrew||Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)|
|McCabe, Steve||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|McCafferty, Ms Chris||Rooney, Terry|
|McDonagh, Siobhain||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Macdonald, Calum||Rowlands, Ted|
|McDonnell, John||Roy, Frank|
|McFall, John||Ruane, Chris|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Ruddock, Joan|
|McIsaac, Shona||Ryan, Ms Joan|
|McKenna, Mrs Rosemary||Sarwar, Mohammad|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Sawford, Phil|
|McNulty, Tony||Sedgemore, Brian|
|MacShane, Denis||Sheerman, Barry|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Shipley, Ms Debra|
|McWalter, Tony||Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)|
|McWilliam, John||Singh, Marsha|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Skinner, Dennis|
|Mallaber, Judy||Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)||Smith, Angela (Basildon)|
|Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)||Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)|
|Marshall-Andrews, Robert||Smith, John (Glamorgan)|
|Martlew, Eric||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Maxton, John||Snape, Peter|
|Meacher, Rt Hon Michael||Soley, Clive|
|Merron, Gillian||Southworth, Ms Helen|
|Michael, Rt Hon Alun||Squire, Ms Rachel|
|Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)||Starkey, Dr Phyllis|
|Milburn, Rt Hon Alan||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Miller, Andrew||Stevenson, George|
|Moffatt, Laura||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Moran, Ms Margaret||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)||Stoate, Dr Howard|
|Motley, Elliot||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)||Stringer, Graham|
|Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Mountford, Kali||Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)|
|Mudie, George||Taylor, David (NW Leics)|
|Mullin, Chris||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)||Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)|
|Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)||Timms, Stephen|
|Tipping, Paddy||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Todd, Mark||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Trickett, Jon||Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)|
|Truswell, Paul||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)||Wills, Michael|
|Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)||Winnick, David|
|Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)||Wood, Mike|
|Turner, Neil (Wigan)||Woolas, Phil|
|Twigg, Derek (Halton)||Worthington, Tony|
|Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)||Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)|
|Tynan, Bill||Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)|
|Vaz, Keith||Wyatt Derek|
|Ward, Ms Claire|
|Wareing, Robert N||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Watts, David||Mr. Kevin Hughes and|
|Whitehead, Dr Alan||Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.|
§ Question accordingly negative.