That this House notes that on 7th June, the same day as President Bush stated in his joint press conference with the Prime Minister in Washington DC `We want to know more about climate change. It's easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it', a statement was issued that had been prepared collectively by the Academy of Science in each G8 country, including in the US National Academy of Sciences, which, inter alia, stated that `a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system'; fully supports the sensible approach of the academies to invoke the environmental precautionary principle; and calls upon the Prime Minister and relevant departmental ministers to put pressure on their United States' counterparts to fulfil their moral duty to take the urgent action needed to combat climate change, to stop trying to water down or distort the final declaration of the Gleneagles G8 meeting in July, and to back fully and carry out all the key climate change mitigation conclusions and action commitments at the Gleneagles G8.

That this House notes that on 7th June, the same day as President Bush stated in his joint press conference with the Prime Minister in Washington DC `We want to know more about climate change. It's easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it', a statement...

That this House notes that the UN Charter allows for military force to be used only as an exception and in two sets of circumstances, in self defence or as expressly authorised by the Security Council under Chapter VII; further notes that, in previous crises, the UN has always used the term 'all necessary means' when authorising military action and this phrase is absent from Resolution 1441 and the Draft Resolution proposed by the US, UK and Spain; further notes that on 5th March, the Prime Minister did not answer the question put to him by the honourable Member for Birmingham Selly Oak as to whether nine affirmative votes for the Draft Resolution in the Security Council would give clear legal authority for war against Iraq; further notes the current legal opinion by Rabinder Singh QC and Charlotte Kilroy of Matrix Chambers, that neither Resolution 1441 nor the Draft Resolution individually or together, provide authorisation for Member States to use force against Iraq and that, as a consequence, the UK would be acting in violation of international law if it were to join in any attack on Iraq in reliance on either or both of these resolutions; likewise is concerned that the escalation of the bombing by the US and UK in the no-fly zones does not obey UN rules on the use of military force; and therefore calls on the Government to amend its policy on Iraq in line with the UN Charter and international law.

That this House notes that the UN Charter allows for military force to be used only as an exception and in two sets of circumstances, in self defence or as expressly authorised by the Security Council under Chapter VII; further notes that, in previous crises, the UN has always used...