← Back to MPs
Mr Harry Barnes

Mr Harry Barnes

LAB Labour Former MP
Last served North East Derbyshire (1987-06-11 – 2005-05-05)
88
Total votes
35
Ayes
53
Noes
0
Other

Parliamentary History

11 Jun 1987 – 5 May 2005 (17 yrs 10 mo)

Voting trends (most recent 12 months of activity)

Voting record

April 2005 6 votes
Division Date Vote
This is a matter of principle, as my noble Friend Lord Davies explained clearly in the other place earlier today, on which the Government are unwilling and, indeed, unable to move. In that context, the House should be clear that to lose the Railways Bill because of this matter would be unfortunate, not least because of the level of consensus on the Bill in this and the other place. The speed at wh... 6 Apr 2005 AYE
I beg to move, That the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, clause 18, clauses 1 to 17, new clauses, new schedules, clause 19, schedules 1 and 2, clause 20 and remaining proceedings on the Bill. The proposed order of consideration will ensure that we can deal with the reasons why the Government are amending clause 18. I know that it is a remaining area of concern, and I want hon. Me... 6 Apr 2005 AYE
Question accordingly agreed to. Lords amendment agreed to. 5 Apr 2005 AYE
Question accordingly negatived. Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Mr. Ainger.] 5 Apr 2005 AYE
"makes it explicit that the Bill does not give authority to doctors, proxies or other third parties considering a patient's best interests to make any decision that is motivated by a desire to kill the person." Will my hon. Friend give way? Will the Minister give way? I just want to follow up with the rest of the letter. The archbishop goes on to say: "But this amendment still leaves a major gap. ... 5 Apr 2005 NO
The Conservative version of the Bill will have all the teeth that the measure currently possesses. That is a reasonable commitment. The hon. Member for Leicester, East was right to say that members of all sectors of our society must be given opportunity on merit but, sadly, some parties on the fringes of British politics do not agree. I hope that very few people cast votes for those parties in the... 5 Apr 2005 AYE
March 2005 20 votes
Division Date Vote
(a) the amount specified in section 257(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be £7,090; and (b) the amount specified in section 257(3) of that Act shall be £7,220. (2) Accordingly, section 257C(1) of that Act, so far as it relates to the amounts so specified, shall not apply for that year. And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution s... 22 Mar 2005 AYE
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his second speech. I am reminded that lawyers sometimes appear to have a sort of taxi meter that charges in guineas according to the length of their speeches. In response to a contribution from my noble Friend Lord Goodhart, Lord Kingsland, the Conservative spokesman, said: "What possible confidence can the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, have that a non-lawyer s... 16 Mar 2005 AYE
Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) , That the draft Renewables Obligation Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.— [Mr. Ainger] Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Del... 15 Mar 2005 AYE
There are wider considerations. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, there may well be an inquest into a death that bears on the state function that led to that death. I can think of inquests in which that has been the case, certainly in the context of my constituents. In any state, the legal mechanisms—which may include an inquiry, an inquest or even criminal proceedings—will have a bearing on our ... 15 Mar 2005 AYE
I think that we have narrowed the issue to two points. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a criminal court convicted that individual and that the legislation that we are passing will allow people to be restricted or detained on the basis of hearsay evidence through the security services? The defendant will know nothing about it; nor will the public, and therein lies the road to miscarriages of ... 10 Mar 2005 NO
Question accordingly agreed to. Lords amendments Nos. 27, 31 and 32 disagreed to. 10 Mar 2005 NO
No. This House has resolved its opinion; the question is whether it will be overturned in another place by those who have not been elected. Interventions sometimes read well in Hansard , and sometimes they do not. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that that one does not. However, I am glad that he got to his feet, as he has just justified the fact that the previous Conservative Government ... 10 Mar 2005 NO
Question accordingly agreed to. On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I just want to make it clear that when the Prime Minister was responding— [Interruption.] Order. I said earlier that we are debating a very serious matter. I have already heard two points of order from the Opposition side of the House— [Interruption.] Order. The Minister wishes to make a point of order and must be heard. Than... 10 Mar 2005 NO
I merely say to the Home Secretary that for him to pray in aid the security services, and for it then to be proved that the security services have not asked for one of the key things that he implied they had asked for, and that the Prime Minister said they had asked for, is to remove the trust of this House. I have in front of me the Hansard report of the references that are being discussed. The P... 10 Mar 2005 NO
Question accordingly agreed to. Lords amendment 33D disagreed to. 10 Mar 2005 NO
Question accordingly agreed to. Lords amendments Nos. 27B, 31B and 32B disagreed to. 10 Mar 2005 NO
The position on the sunset clause is the biggest absurdity of all. We have a Labour peer—Baroness Hayman, previously a Member of this House—putting forward the eminently sensible suggestion of a sunset clause, to come into effect after a year, for this legislation, which is acknowledged on all sides to be temporary, emergency and not entirely well considered. That is not acceptable. To say that to... 10 Mar 2005 NO
Question accordingly negatived. Amendment proposed: (b), in line 5, leave out from "effect" to end.—[Mr. Lidington.] 10 Mar 2005 NO
Does the Secretary of State agree that Sinn Fein should take note of the fact that those who have sought and sustained a constructive dialogue nevertheless find themselves with no alternative but to support the sanctions? That is a consequence of the strains that the IRA's actions have now placed on the process. Sinn Fein really must reflect—I am sure that it will—on our debate and start visibly t... 10 Mar 2005 NO
Question accordingly agreed to. Lords amendment: No. 9 9 Mar 2005 NO
Question accordingly agreed to. Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to. 9 Mar 2005 NO
Far more important than that almost but not quite arcane point about the standard of proof is the condition that the suspect must have the best opportunity to answer the case against him. I have been greatly cheered by the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to reviewing the system of special advocates. Will my hon. and learned Friend give way? No, I do not have time and others wan... 9 Mar 2005 NO
Question accordingly agreed to. Lords amendment disagreed to. 9 Mar 2005 NO
I cannot give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I will just complete my five minutes before I resume my place. I realise that he is on the side of the angels but his particular angel is being too naive if he thinks that we are half way near to getting the sort of terrorism legislation that the House should approve, in any circumstances, once it is given the proper time to debate it. I regret that I... 9 Mar 2005 NO
"The evidence . . . has shown that directors are giving leadership and direction, that increasingly companies are directing health and safety at board level, and that better guidance to companies is what is needed rather than legislation or further regulation. Des Browne was advised by the Commission"— that is, the Health and Safety Commission— "in January of this year that new legislation was not... 4 Mar 2005 AYE
February 2005 4 votes
Division Date Vote
There is a schedule that explains how control orders work, but we have not had a moment—not even a minute—to discuss it. These are serious matters, but we have not taken them seriously. I fully respect my hon. Friend's views and opinions, but we have not scrutinised a hugely important Bill. We have not done ourselves credit. We shall not reach a solution by opposing each other. The Government must... 28 Feb 2005 NO
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, although there has been some latitude, he is again going very wide of the amendments under discussion. I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs. Heal. Let me ask the Home Secretary a question that I asked the Minister when I thought that she would respond to this brief debate. I urge the Home Secretary to tell us that we will have a proper chance to discuss ame... 28 Feb 2005 AYE
Question accordingly negatived. Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading) :— 23 Feb 2005 NO
As to the contribution of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) , does he accept that there is a serious threat, which I thought was fairly common ground? Does he accept that some people cannot be prosecuted through a conventional legal system? Does he accept that detention in prison under part 4 is not sustainable in the light of the Law Lords' judgment? Frankly, in those circumstances, what w... 23 Feb 2005 AYE
Page 1/3