HL Deb 08 November 1999 vol 606 cc1164-77

(" .—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (3) ("the DSS pension") and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a widow in receipt of a basic pension under section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; and a widow in receipt of such a pension who has remarried or is living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex may not retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).

(3) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are—

  1. (a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order re-enacting the provisions of that order,
  2. (b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,
  3. (c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939 or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),
  4. (d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A, but do propose Amendment No. 20B in lieu thereof.

Last week your Lordships sent this amendment about the attributable forces' family pension being for life, regardless of future marital status, back to the other place. It was debated there last Monday and I am most grateful to all the honourable Members in the other place who supported it—though, alas, not enough of them did so. The honourable Member for Windsor said that it was a very narrow amendment and that it was "ring-fenced". It is; it deals only with 2,650 ladies, not all of whom are going to remarry at once. However, if passed, it would be to the Government's financial interest to persuade them so to do.

After much thought, we decided on a new amendment to restrict the provision still further. This excludes specifically any lady in receipt of the state retirement pension. The purpose of Amendment No. 20B is to allow any younger widow the chance of starting a new life, with a new husband and a new father for her children, without financial hardship. If the lady is over 60, the chances are that her children will be able to stand on their own feet.

There is no legal, procedural or technical reason why acceptance of this amendment should compel the Government to make consequential changes to the occupational schemes of other groups of public pensioners. There is no uniform standard of provision across public service schemes from which acceptance of this amendment would represent an unprecedented departure. There are already significant variations in scheme regulations and funding arrangements; for example, death in service provisions for firemen and police are more generous than those currently available to service widows.

It is also claimed that, on ground of equity, similar provision would have to be made at significant extra cost for the much larger group of service widows who draw pensions under the main provisions of the Armed Forces occupational pension scheme. Over 80 per cent of those 68,000 service widows will be the widows of pensioners who died in retirement of natural causes. Most are elderly ladies who are not left with young children. This amendment could not possibly include them. This is not a case of "ping-pong"; it is simply a question of honour and of what is right. We believe that this new clause removes any possibility of doubt or of expansion beyond the 2,650 ladies concerned.

Last week my noble friend Lord Northbourne talked of the importance of fathers and families. he was supported by the noble Earls, Lord Mar and Kellie and Lord Longford; the noble Viscounts, Lord Hood, Lord Brentford and Lord Bridgeman; the noble Baroness, Lady Young; the noble Lords, Lord Warner, Lord Ahmed, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool and Lord Ashbourne; and my noble friends Lord Alton, Lord Rosslyn, and Lord Listowel; the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and myself. Although the debate was restricted to two minutes per speaker, we all felt that the importance of a father in a family mattered so much that we had to speak. None of us exceeded our two minutes; some of us even spoke for less.

I have already spoken of the children of war widows who visited your Lordships' House two weeks ago who are the very children to whom this amendment might mean much: four and five year-olds, Matthew and Dominic Beale, Charles Auckland, who came in a pushchair and told his mother I was a nice lady, and Jennifer Fox who wore a party dress, and how pleased they all were when the Doorkeepers and some of your Lordships spoke to them, turning their faces to father figures, like sunflowers to the sun. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A, but do propose Amendment No. 20B in lieu thereof. —(Baroness Strange.)

3.30 p.m.

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords, we are sympathetic to what the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has said. This matter has now been debated in the other place where the Opposition indicated that they are supportive of this proposal on the understanding that it is strictly ring-fenced to relate to post-1973 war widows of servicemen who die or who are killed in the line of duty while still serving. That said, we do not think that it is right to return it to them at this stage. It is our hope and expectation that the Under-Secretary of State in the other place, Mr Rooker, will do as he said in debate and, metaphorically hotfoot it from this debate to the MoD to say what has been said here and in the other place, and ensure that that is properly addressed in the review".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/99; col. 390.] In addition, I feel that it is important to press the Minister for assurance that this review is real, given the reasons stated for the Commons disagreeing to this amendment; namely, Because it involves charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient". We are concerned that this reference to the review is inconsistent with the reason stating a concern that there may be a charge on public funds.

Earl Russell

My Lords, we on these Benches have supported the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, at every stage of proceedings and we continue to do so. We think that the present treatment of war widows rests on a series of assumptions about the position of women which, in this day and age, are totally indefensible. Because I have repeated that argument at every stage of the Bill, I shall not repeat it now. I hope that the House will take it as read.

I shall instead turn my attention to the reply given at the previous stage when we considered this matter by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who I am happy to see present. She argued that it was absolutely impossible for the MoD to do what was wanted. If she will forgive my saying so, she reminded me of one of my academic colleagues some 40 years ago. The college said then that it was absolutely impossible for it to pay the staff more often than once every two months. Some of us expressed some surprise at this view and a deputation was sent to look at the accounting system, led by a professor who was a specialist in accountancy. he reported that he had heard that such an accounting system had once existed, but he had never hoped to have the privilege of actually seeing it in operation!

I wondered whether some such remark as that might possibly apply to the defence of the Ministry of Defence, for in effect its argument was that it did not really deny that what was being done to war widows was an injustice; it said that it could not rectify that injustice for fear it might have to rectify some other injustices too. That is the defence of the Crewe limerick: A man in the restaurant at Crewe Once found a mouse in his stew Said the waiter, "Don't shout, Don't wave it about Or the rest will be wanting one too". In making this defence, the MoD has impaled itself on a fork: for either its argument is correct—in which case it will have to rectify the other injustices also—or it is not correct, in which case it is of no force. In neither case does it constitute an argument for resisting this amendment.

The key question here is: is this amendment ring-fenced? The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has dealt with that point; I shall deal with it a little further. It is, of course, true that the essential injustice of denying a widow the right to remarry or cohabit extends beyond war widows. On the other hand, it is equally true that it has been recognised, I think in every century, that the widows of members of the armed services killed in the line of duty have a quite special claim to consideration.

The noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, invoked the fire service, the police and the Civil Service. I know that members of the Civil Service have a thankless job, but it is not normally regarded as part of their responsibility to be killed in the line of duty. Members of the fire service and the police may sometimes end up being killed in the line of duty. I am sure that they have a great claim on our consideration when they do, but it is not of the very object of the exercise that some of them will. You cannot go to war without contemplating casualties in your own forces; not even in the days of sanitised war by Cruise missiles can you do that. If the object is to send people into a situation where you expect some of them to get killed, you must have a special consideration for them. The reason you must do this is essentially that otherwise you do not succeed in recruiting.

I was interested in an item which appeared in this morning's newspapers. The text I have here is from the Independent although the article also appeared in other papers. The article states that there are, concerns that the British Army is now too small to meet its commitments". The result is that it has begun recruiting direct from prisons and young offender institutions. I am told that this has happened before but it is becoming more systematic. The paper reports that, CritFics claim that the scheme is scraping the bottom of the barrel because the Army cannot find enough recruits through traditional methods". The noble Baroness shakes her head. If she wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to take the intervention. I think that if anything remotely resembling this is actually the case, rather than going to such lengths would it not be a great deal simpler and probably cheaper to accept this amendment? It is not the identical amendment which was moved before. When another place pleads privilege—as it did—we must accept that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, accepted it. But those who remember the arguments about Scottish tuition fees will remember that it remains in order to table a somewhat different amendment to see whether another place may take a different attitude.

I listened to much of the debate in the other place. One could say that, in a sense, this amendment was considered. But it was grouped with a great many others and any consideration it received was properly described as cursory.

This is not even a case of asking the other place to think again; it had a great deal to think about last Wednesday. I should like the other place to think about this matter. If the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, chooses to press the amendment to a Division, we will support her.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, about a very simple point of construction. Can she clarify whether the proposed entitlement in subsections (1) and (2) when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex —requires amendment to the provisions, schemes and enactments referred to in subsection (3)(a) to (d)?

Baroness Strange

My Lords, I think it does. If people are discovered to be cohabiting or living together, the pension is taken away from them. Whether they are remarried or cohabiting, in either event they lose the pension.

The Lord Bishop of Wakefield

My Lords, perhaps I may speak as, I think, the only diocesan Bishop in the Church of England whose father was killed during the last world war. Therefore, my mother, as a war widow, brought up her only child in the kind of difficulties which many Members of your Lordships' House will understand. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, for the enormous sympathy and understanding that she has consistently shown to those families which have found themselves in this predicament.

I welcome also the contribution made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his plea that this House should specially consider the particular situation in which those who have suffered because of things which have been done on behalf of all of us find themselves. They should receive from us all—in this House and as a nation—the utmost consideration.

I shall listen very carefully to how the Minister responds to this part of the debate. If, as I think I heard rightly, there may be some way in which consideration is given further to this matter, I hope that I shall find myself able to accept the Government's stance. But if that is not the case, I hope that every consideration will be given to those war widows who, through no fault of their own, often find themselves in a most difficult situation—emotionally and economically—for the simple reason that their husbands have given their lives for their country.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, yet again, I wish to strongly support the amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said almost all of what I wished to say from the service point of view. However, I should like to make two further points.

My first point is that the problem the Army and the other services have at the moment is not so much one of recruitment—although that certainly exists—but one of retention. This is one of the issues on which retention will be judged—whether people stay or go.

My second point is that it is all very well to say, "Let us wait for the review". First, we all know that reviews take a very long time; and, secondly, if the amendment were to meet the approval of the Commons and become law, it would not matter what the review said. If we do not pass this amendment and the review later discusses the question and says, "What a nice thing this would be", there would be no legislation to support it. Ways would be found by the Treasury not to have the legislation. This is a matter of money.

As we are offering the other place a new amendment—yet more ring-fenced than before—I strongly urge that we should consider the effect on the services. This is an extremely important issue by which they will be judging the Government and the country.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Freyberg

My Lords, it is extraordinary that in the same week in which so many of us are wearing poppies to commemorate those who died in the service of their country— and in the same week that the Prime Minister and other Ministers will lay wreathes at the Cenotaph—the Government are refusing to provide current servicemen and those recently deceased with the kind of pension that will offer their widows and families lasting security.

The Prime Minister has declared that he is keen on promoting the family and keen on modernisation. This is one area where modernising the terms of the pension of a uniquely dangerous profession in line with modern-day occupational pensions would be extremely welcome. As was said, unlike almost any other profession, the military expects those serving to train for and partake in combat and to put their lives at risk on a regular basis.

Sadly, some young families will inevitably lose their fathers—several have in the last month. Such an eventually should be properly catered for, especially as it affects a very small number. Instead, if a war widow ever considers remarrying or cohabiting, she risks losing all her pension, which is often her only financial security. Any new partner is expected to provide for children who have lost their father purely because of the nature of his profession. In other words, a widow would not be considering remarrying if her husband had not been killed or had died pursuing his work. This is outdated and unacceptable.

My noble friend Lady Strange has forcefully articulated these arguments. I support her more than ever after reading last week's debate in the other place and the Government's worryingly poor command of the figures thrown up by this amendment. I hope that the Government will think again and not take constant refuge in the delaying tactic of a pledge to look at the matter after a review. The reform of the Armed Forces main occupational pension scheme is a longer-term project which may not address the immediate position of the small, ring-fenced group with which the amendment is concerned. Many young children could be settled into new family units. They should not be asked to wait any longer.

Lord Craig of Radley

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendment. In doing so, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, on her persistence on this point.

There are three strands to the Government's rejection of the earlier attempt. Those three strands—cost, precedents and unfairness to widows of others in the public service—may be prayed in aid again, so I should like to spend a moment talking about them.

It is said that there will be an additional cost to the public purse. The sums involved must be minuscule, particularly if the surrender of the DSS pension on remarriage is taken into account. It has been argued that the net cost cannot be quantified because there is no way of telling how many who do not remarry under the present scheme might marry again if the rules were changed as proposed in the amendment. Are we really to take that as an overriding reason for refusal? Often in similar cases of uncertainty about how people will react, there are sound statistical and actuarial methods for gauging costs. If the Government were willing, surely that would not be a reason for refusal.

What then must be the reasons? A resort of all governments is to pray in aid the creation of precedents as a reason for refusing. In this case, that strikes me as bizarre. Several very cogent arguments have been made already during the passage of the Bill which make it clear that, if the will were there, the rationale for giving these widows what they deserve could be found.

Let me offer another suggestion for the Government to think about. The Armed Forces are the only group of people who are excluded from the maximum working hours legislation. Why not make use of that? Let us face it: no uniform standard of provision applies across the public service schemes, in this case or in any other. Even when the much-heralded and too long-awaited MoD review is complete I would bet as a near certainty that it will not prove to conform with all other public sector schemes. There will always be significant differences. I do not believe that any MoD review can change that. For that reason, the argument does not stand that there will be differences if the widows are treated in this way.

When replying to the previous debate on this matter, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, said: While we have an enormous amount of sympathy for the women whom the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has drawn to our attention … there are many widows whose husbands have died pursuing their duty and public service in dangerous circumstances who will feel embittered, upset and angry if this amendment is passed".—[Official Report, 27/10/99; col. 312.] Surely the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who is so genuinely sympathetic to the war widows, is not suggesting that bitterness and envy among others are reasons for refusing to accept this amendment. I believe that many of those other groups would feel pleasure and gratitude that 'the Government had seen fit to help war widows in this way. I support the amendment.

Lord Morris of Manchester

My Lords, for reasons that I have explained in previous debates on this important issue, I rise simply to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, that if she takes her amendment to a Division, she will have my support.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, because I spoke very strongly in favour of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, when we discussed the matter on two previous occasions, I should say why I do not think that I will be able to support her today if she presses her amendment to a Division to send it back to the Commons. First, I could not reasonably justify the further tightening of the screw. The noble Baroness's original amendment was the correct one and that is the one that the Government should have accepted. I understand why the noble Baroness needed to ring-fence her new amendment in such a way that certain war widows would not be able to keep their pension if they remarry. However, it would be wrong to allow the Government off the principal hook, which is that they should address the whole question of the Armed Forces pension scheme and how it treats war widows who remarry.

When we discussed this matter on the previous occasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, mentioned the problem of read-across. If the Government had accepted the amendment of the noble Baroness, all other pension schemes in the public sector would rise up to say, "Me too, please". The noble Earl, Lord Russell, dispensed with that argument in his usual amusing and elegant way. However, I would say that that argument did not seem to hold water for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the Labour Opposition when they voted in favour of the restoration of war widows' pensions on second widowhood. The question of read-across did not occur to the Opposition on that occasion. I may have prayed it in aid as the government Minister, but it did not seem to matter to them at the time. It is a little rich that the Government think it matters in this case.

I shall repeat what I said on the last occasion that we discussed this matter:. I know what a difficult brick wall the MoD is in this regard. Without being rude to the noble Baronesses, I described the matter as one of the lassies trying to do better than the laddies; namely, trying to do better than my noble friend Lord Howe and I had done when we were in office. I wish them well. However, we shall not aid the issue by sending back the amendment before us today. All those noble Lords who heard the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, had the distinct impression that she understood and sympathised with the problem. Certainly, poor Mr Rooker—I say that advisedly—found himself in the position of having to eat his own words five minutes after having spoken them. he had been fed the figure of £15 million by the MoD, but he quickly realised that that was not the figure at all. he had to backtrack quite considerably.

Noble Lords have pressed this matter as much as is possible at this stage. We must hope that Mr Rooker can be held to his closing statement, which I shall quote: The Government have got the message both from this debate and from the one in the other place. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to trust to the review to put the maximum pressure on the MoD … I give my commitment to this as a DSS Minister—that I make urgent representations to my right hon. Friend as a result of what has been said tonight".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/99; col. 392.] I am prepared to accept that statement, but with a little warning to the Government. They will have noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, will stay with us in the next Session of Parliament. I am sure all noble Lords will join me in congratulating the noble Baroness on that. If the noble Baroness finds a way to come forward with an amendment on this issue in the next Session—and I am sure that she will be able to do so—and if the Government are still difficult, then I shall urge everyone to vote against them. However, they should now be given the benefit of the doubt.

Earl Bathurst

My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate in what he said on this matter. In 1942 I, too, lost my father. It seems a long time ago now. he was a Member of another place. My mother—his widow—took on his seat at Bristol Central and sat in another place for nearly two-and-a-half years representing that constituency. I remember only too well the hard work, trouble and care taken by my mother on behalf of war widows. She was president of the women's section of the Royal British Legion for a long time after hostilities had ceased. I support the noble Baroness, and if she does press her amendment to a Division, I shall certainly be in her camp.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, last week the other place voted to overturn Amendment No. 20 which would allow forces widows whose husbands' death was attributable to service to keep their occupational pension for life. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, pressed me on what was the meaning of returning the amendment on financial grounds, as opposed to addressing the merits of the argument. I shall draw the noble Baroness's attention to the Companion to the Standing Orders: If the Commons disagree to a Lords amendment which infringes their financial privileges, the disagreement is made on the ground of privilege alone, and not on the merits of the amendment, even though the Commons may have debated the merits of the amendment". That illustrates that this complies with the procedures of the House rather than the substantive issue. I hope that will reassure the noble Baroness.

This new amendment also seeks to allow these widows to keep their services attributable pension on remarriage, but excludes those in receipt of a Category A state retirement pension—that is, those who have earned a state pension in their own right.

The Government recognise the sacrifices made by those who die as a result of their service and the need to compensate their dependants adequately, fairly and properly. They greatly value the contributions service wives make in supporting their husbands. That is why the war widows' attributable pension is rightly more generous than the other service widows' pension. The annual attributable pension for widows is 400 per cent higher than normal service widows' pension precisely to reflect that degree of compensation, respect and recognition for the loss of a husband in service.

I understand that the Government's decision to oppose this amendment may seem unsympathetic. I hope that that is not the case, because paying widows' pensions for life is an issue that does not only affect the attributable pension widows and it does not only affect other service widows; it affects all public service widows. Service widows are not uniquely affected, even though while they remain widowed, they are uniquely—and rightly—compensated.

The position of widows of servicemen is, I believe, similar to that of many public service widows. Many noble Lords have said that it is possible to ring-fence, or even if that is not possible, then that is neither here nor there. However, noble Lords, particularly those who have been in government, know perfectly well that, for the sake of equity and fairness the Government have to consider the read-across implications of any amendment, however sympathetic noble Lords may be to a particular group.

I know that I seem to be arguing the thin edge of the wedge; but that indeed is what it is. The Government could not in all equity accept an amendment which ring-fenced those war widows with pensions already 400 per cent more generous than those of other service widows and not extend those rights there. Such an important matter must be considered coherently and in the proper context, which is not, if I may suggest to your Lordships, an amendment to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.

The MoD has given an assurance that the issue is being given serious consideration as part of its comprehensive review of the Armed Forces pension scheme. In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, my noble friend Lady Symons tells me that the MoD expects the review to be completed and the findings published and ready for consultation next summer. We are not talking about a very long period of time. This is not a delaying or kicking into the long grass tactic, as your Lordships might fear. There is a review; it is expected to be concluded shortly. In that context the MoD will be reviewing all the pensions, including pensions due to illness and to death in service for men and for their widows alike. It is in that context that I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment today.

A further concern, identified by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is that the amendment would restrict the application of the right to retain a pension on remarriage to those who had acquired a Category A state pension. That means that those who had saved and invested in their own pension would be penalised while those who had not and were dependent on their husband's pension would be protected. That would be a further very unfortunate and unfair anomaly which I am sure your Lordships would not wish to pursue.

We are not talking about cost. We are talking about timing, context, ring-fencing and fairness. The review expects to report next summer, but in fairness to all service widows the matter needs to be considered in its full context. An amendment to a DSS welfare reform Bill is not the right vehicle. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, will accept that the Government and the MoD especially—my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean has been present for the debate and spoke to these matters at Third Reading—have very much taken on board the concerns expressed by your Lordships. The views of this House have been heard and the issue has been well aired and will be addressed in the review, which will proceed fairly shortly and will then be out for public consultation. It is proper to consider the matter in its full context and it is equitable to do so because of the very real issues of ring-fencing and the extra anomalies that would be introduced by the amendment, which is defective.

The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has fought a good fight. I am confident that in her hands this issue will not go away. But when it comes back—if it comes back—let it come back in a proper context, properly reviewed and assessed and properly subjected to consultation. In the light of that, your Lordships can make a considered judgment. I hope that the noble Baroness will not now press her amendment.

Baroness Strange

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment, particularly my noble friends Lord Freyberg, Lady Park of Monmouth and Lord Morris, my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell. I should like to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I am sorry that I am threatening him, but perhaps with any luck this may go away. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his kind and moving words and I thank other noble Lords who have spoken. I thank my noble friend Lady Hollis for the time she has spent on this issue—it was not of my choosing—and for the kind and lovely way in which she replied. I know that her personal feelings are the same as mine and the same as many of your Lordships. We are not being intransigent, difficult, or any of those things. We are simply putting down a marker for the future. We modified the amendment in a way which I hoped would be helpful to the Government. This is a money-saving amendment, not a money-spending one.

If something is right, fair and true, in the long run that is what matters. I should like to ask the House to agree to Amendment No. 20B in lieu.

4.5 p.m.

On Question, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A but do propose Amendment No. 20B in lieu thereof?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No. 1
Ackner, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Addington, L. Freyberg, L.
Ailsa, M. Gainford, L.
Alderdice, L. Gardner of Parkes, B.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Glanusk, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L. Glasgow, E.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, Goodhart, L
L. Gormanston, V.
Ashbourne, L. Greenway, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Grey, E.
Avebury, L. Hampton, L.
Banbury of Southam, L. Hamwee, B.
Barker, B. Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Bathurst, E. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Harris of Richmond, B.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Hogg, B.
Bethell, L. Hutchinson of Lullington, L.
Blyth, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Bradshaw, L. Ilchester, E.
Bramall, L. Inge, L.
Bridges, L. Ironside, L.
Bruntisfield, L. Jacobs, L.
Buccleuch and Queensberry, D. Jeger, B.
Buckinghamshire, E. Jopling, L.
Cadman, L. Kemsley, V.
Calverley, L. Kilbracken, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Carlisle, E. Kintore, E.
Chalfont, L. Lauderdale, E
Clancarty, E. Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Clement-Jones, L. Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Cochrane of Cults, L. Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Coleridge, L. Liverpool, E.
Craig of Radley, L. Lloyd-Webber, L.
Crickhowell, L. Long, V.
Crook, L. McNair, L.
Cross, V. McNally, L.
Cuckney, L. Maddock, B.
Davidson, V. Manton, L.
Dholakia, L. Mar and Kellie, E.
Drogheda, E. Masham of Ilton, B.
Dundee, E. Merrivale, L.
Eden of Winton, L. Mersey, V.
Effingham, E. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Elibank, L. Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Elles, B. Monro of Langholm, L.
Exmouth, V. Monson, L.
Ezra, L. Morris, L.
Falkland, V. Morris of Manchester, L.
Fookes, B. Moyne, L.
Newall, L. Sharman, L.
Newby, L. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Nicholson of Winterbourne, B. Sharples, B.
Nunburnholme, L. Shaughnessy, L.
O'Cathain, B. Simon of Glaisdale. L.
Ogmore, L. Slim, V.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B. Smith of Clifton, L.
Palmer, L. Steel of Aikwood, L.
Park of Monmouth, B. Stewartby, L.
Pender, L. Strange, B. [Teller]
Plumb, L. Suffolk and Berkshire, E
Prior, L. Swansea, L.
Rathcavan, L. Taverne, L.
Razzall, L. Temple of Stowe, E.
Redesdale, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Rennard, L Thurso, V.
Rochester, L. Tordoff, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Trenchard, V.
Rowallan, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Russell, E. [Teller] Waddington, L.
Ryder of Warsaw, B. Weatherill, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. Wedgwood, L.
Sandberg, L. Westbury, L.
Sandford, L. Wigoder, L.
Sandwich, E. Williams of Crosby, B.
Sandys, L. Wise, L.
Shannon, E. Wynford, L.
Acton, L. Gale, B.
Alli, L. Gavron, L.
Amos, B. Goldsmith, L.
Ampthill, L. Goudie, B.
Annan, L. Gould of Potternewton, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Grabiner, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Graham of Edmonton. L.
Bach, L. Gregson, L.
Barnett, L. Grenfell, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Hanworth, V.
Berkeley, L. Hardy of Wath, L.
Blackstone, B. Harris of Haringey, L.
Blease, L. Harrison, L.
Borrie, L. Haskel, L.
Bragg, L. Hayman, B.
Brett, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Brookman, L. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Howells of St Davids, B.
Burlison, L. Howie of Troon, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Carter, L.[Teller] Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Chandos, V. Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Charteris of Amisfield, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Islwyn, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Crawley, B. Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Currie of Marylebone, L. King of West Bromwich, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B. Kirkhill, L.
David, B. Lane, L.
Davies of Coity, L. Lea of Crondall, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. Lincoln, Bp.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. Lipsey, L.
Desai, L. Lockwood, B.
Diamond, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Donoughue, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. McCarthy, L.
Dubs, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Elder, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Evans of Parkside, L. [Teller]
Evans of Watford, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. Mallalieu, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L. Shepherd, L.
Milner of Leeds, L. Shore of Stepney, L.
Mishcon, L. Simon, V.
Molloy, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Monkswell, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Murray of Epping Forest, L. Strabolgi, L.
Nicol, B. Strafford, E.
Orme, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Peston, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Pitkeathley, B. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Plant of Highfield, L. Thornton, B.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Thurlow, L.
Uddin, B.
Prys-Davies, L. Varley, L.
Puttnam, L. Wakefield, Bp.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Walker of Doncaster, L.
Rea, L. Warner, L.
Rees-Mogg, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Richard, L. Whitaker, B.
Roll of Ipsden, L. Whitty, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
St. John of Fawsley, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Sawyer, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B. Young of Dartington, L.
Serota, B. Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.