HL Deb 27 October 1999 vol 606 cc303-15

(" .—(1) A widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) ("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) 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 reenacting 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, 59 years ago I was visiting my aunts in Lambeth. They were both ARP wardens. The street in which they lived had been heavily bombed the night before. There were broken houses, bricks and debris lying everywhere. Walls stood on their own; the rest of the house had been torn away, leaving the bare upstairs fireplace surrounded by pink flowered wallpaper. There was of course no furniture left for anyone to cling to. I could only trust that the occupants were sitting safely in their shelter. It was the end of so many hopes, fears and endeavours, a place once loved, now gone. The corner shop had also had its windows broken, although they still had sticky tape bound across them to minimise the blast. But there was a smile from the shopkeeper, and in the corner a small, very British notice, "Business as usual". I think that small vignette describes how we all feel today.

It is so short a time since I moved a similar amendment that I shall not weary your Lordships further with detail. This amendment does not refer to the pension that all war widows receive from the DSS. It refers only to the attributable forces family pension which post-1973 war widows receive if their husband's death is attributable to his service life: fighting for his country in time of war or working as a peacekeeper, or in training for those activities.

It is a fact that the lives of servicemen are constantly at risk. Since I last spoke on this subject on 11th October, there have been three aeroplane accidents and four young men have lost their lives. It is also a fact that their widows, many of whom may be young, with children, and wish to remarry will lose both the DSS pension and the pension to which their husbands contributed if they remarry. There is an interesting lack of logic here, in that they will also lose the pension if they cohabit. On the other hand, a lady who cohabits before her husband is killed will not be entitled to a pension after his death because she is not married. One of the young Lossiemouth pilots left behind a fiancée who was expecting a baby, but because they were cohabiting rather than married she is not entitled to a pension. There is an anomaly of some kind here. We hold that the attributable pension should be for life, regardless of future marital status.

I have said that the amendment would affect about 2,700 ladies. There are in fact in this group only 2,650. Of those, on 1st April this year, one was under 20; 62 were under 30; 394 were under 40; and 806 were under 50. There were only 1,263 under 50 in total, and of those only 457 under 40. I feel that I am beginning to sound like a marriage bureau consultant. However, the point is that there are not many ladies involved. The proposal would cost the Government no new money, and might indeed save them something.

Last Monday, some of those younger ladies came to London with their children for a tour of 10 Downing Street to which the Prime Minister had kindly invited them. We all enjoyed the privilege very much. Later, we came to Westminster Hall, where we all picnicked together, and the ladies also had the privilege of meeting some of your Lordships. They will have put their case much more powerfully and poignantly than I could.

The War Widows Association holds that the attributable forces family pension should be for life, regardless of future marital status. My noble friend Lady Dean described the situation as clearly wrong. She is right. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, on being present to listen to the debate both on Report and today; I am also pleased to welcome the arrival of the first woman to hold office at the Ministry of Defence. It is appropriate and constructive that the appointment comes at the same time as that of the first man to speak in Parliament on women's issues. I have always said that when those two things happened together we should be making progress.

It is precisely that progress which means that we need to re-examine very carefully the attributable forces family pension. The arrangements made by the Ministry of Defence in times past relate to a view of women which is now not merely contrary to experience but positively indefensible. They rest on the view that the function of a woman is to be kept by a man. So, as soon as another man begins either to cohabit or marries the woman, any MoD responsibility to her is assumed to cease.

That is not, as I understand it, what the attributable forces family pension is for. For any spouse it is a very considerable sacrifice to consent to a partner going off to war with a risk of being killed. It has always been a difficult thing for anyone to do. It has always been recognised by governments of all parties that people simply do not do that unless their sacrifice is recognised and some appreciation is shown by those in authority.

We are suggesting that in the present climate that appreciation cannot be properly shown unless it is understood to be for the suffering and the sacrifice, and not merely for the lack of a man to keep the woman. It seems to me also a little curious to insist on imposing permanent celibacy on widows in their 20s. It is not easily done, and not kindly received. The Government will have a much better reputation, not only within the forces but within many different circles, if they understand the force of the argument behind the amendment, and if they welcome it. I end my remarks in that hope.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. I do not know a great deal about pension provision in the forces, but I understand that the pension referred to stands in as a kind of occupational pension. I have some experience of negotiating private occupational pensions in industry. It has become increasingly common over the past 10 or 15 years for such schemes to make arrangements for a widow's pension to be continued even after remarriage. I really do not see why a similar provision cannot be applied in these circumstances. I support the excellent case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

Lord Craig of Radley

My Lords, I, too, should like to associate myself with the amendment. The case has been strongly put. I wonder whether in the case of two people who had been married but who had divorced, it would have been possible for the wife to inherit part of her divorce settlement, to which she would have had access for the rest of her life.

This is a pension to which the husband makes contributions throughout his service career. There is every expectation that if the two people continue together, the wife will be well supported on the basis of her husband's pay. As a widow, the woman may well have children to support. There is no great financial difference between what is proposed and the current situation. It therefore seems iniquitous that the present arrangement should be allowed to stand. I strongly support the amendment.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Freyberg

My Lords, I too strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Strange. Like her, I was shocked and distressed to hear about the fast jet crashes of the past few weeks which have resulted in the deaths of four servicemen under the age of 40. Sadly, there will always be accidents involving high-tech equipment. Many of our servicemen are involved in perilous activities, often on a daily basis. This kind of risk is expected of them. It is part of the job. But although the possibility of death is ever present, we fail to make adequate provision should the worst happen.

The conditions under which the current war widow's pension is paid out fall short of what a serviceman has a right to expect. We fail to face up to the likely future circumstances of a war widow and her family. By providing pensions only for as long as war widows remain unmarried, regardless of their husbands' contributions, we circumscribe their personal lives and the kind of families in which their children will grow up.

We provide strong financial reasons for war widows not to remarry or even cohabit. This is all the harder as, given the nature of military service, many are young when they lose their husbands. As the noble Baroness said, currently there are 394 war widows under the age of 40, many of whom are likely to have young children. It seems cruel to expect them not to build up a new family unit; if they do, they risk losing all financial security. The amendment is therefore an opportunity to benefit a comparatively small number of very deserving widows and children. They should not be ignored. Their husbands, and the men currently serving in our Armed Forces, deserve this kind of security. We expect our servicemen literally to put their lives on the line. In return, we must provide their families with a pension scheme that matches their unique circumstances, thus honouring their commitment.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, will take this excellent opportunity to impress upon the MoD that it is the will of this House to provide our servicemen with a just pension for their potential widows.

Lord Northbourne

My Lords, I wish to add one further argument in support of the amendment. Recent research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that children in happy step-families do as well as children in natural families. However, the evidence indicates that children without fathers can be, and often are, severely disadvantaged. I do not believe that we should do anything to discourage a mother from finding a new father for her children if she is able to do so.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, there are some practical issues which should be considered in support of this excellent amendment. Particularly in the Army, accompanied service is the rule. It is difficult enough for an army wife to have a career while her husband is in the UK. When abroad, she becomes nonresident, or not habitually resident, once one tax year has elapsed. If, as in Cyprus, she manages to get one of the very few jobs available in the defence complex and can pay national insurance contributions, that is not recognised on her return until she has secured a job and paid those contributions in the UK for a year. She cannot, incidentally, claim jobseeker's allowance. When the appropriate form about her proposed employment is sent by her employer to the Inland Revenue, that eminent body has no way of recognising her as an army wife who has been making a contribution to service life abroad. Therefore, it sends her a form devised for aliens and visitors which inquires why she wants to work and how long she proposes to stay in the UK.

More than 20,000 spouses accompany service people on overseas postings. Most of them must give up their jobs on posting and can work only part time anyway. They cannot contribute to ISA schemes when overseas because under Inland Revenue rules it would be discriminatory to amend the arrangements to allow them to do so. I understand that that issue has been raised at ministerial level. When families are overseas, opportunities for employment are limited. In some cases, they are prevented from working, except as Crown servants in a few instances. Those who do not have jobs as Crown servants and have not taken out a deferred contributory pension will not meet the residence criteria. Incidentally, it would be a major step to improve their position if they could be allowed to take out a deferred contributory policy while overseas and be able to contribute to such a scheme for five years or, because of the many periods of broken employment, even eight years.

I give an example of the difficulty faced by service wives. Mrs A, who is in her 50s, has spent 17 out of her 26 years of married life abroad. She has only begun to establish a career in the UK in the past three years. She will have to work for at least 10 years to qualify for the state pension in her own right; otherwise, she is excluded from it. I add the important point that the stakeholder pension will go far to help such wives in the future, but it comes too late for those already in their late 40s. Thus, army wives who play a vital part in the work of the services both at home and overseas, and who make a major contribution to it, are disqualified by residence abroad from building up ISAs. Because of constant moves they are unlikely to build a career which allows them to save for a private pension, and at the end of the day often they do not qualify for a state pension. Those seem irrational and unjust situations.

I raise these issues because I believe it is essential that the House and, perhaps more importantly, the Government should recognise that army widows are already heavily handicapped, with little prospect of a career structure that gives them the chance either to build a private pension or, in many cases, to qualify for a state pension. It has been assumed that if a widow has the temerity to marry again another man will support her and she has no claim to anything more, even though her first husband earned the right to leave her at least part of his pension and that, in partnership with him, she played a key part in contributing to the work of the services and, in so doing, had to forgo any possibility of a lucrative career of her own. She cannot, thus, establish her independence.

Many widows will remarry if they have children, at least partly for the children's sake. I made reference to that in the previous debate, and I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who repeated it. They will want to give their children fathers. It seems to me that the dice are loaded against them. They cannot have ISAs or non-contributory pensions and the Revenue treats them as aliens. The country, nevertheless, owes them a great debt. Surely everything possible should be done to enable them to retain a degree of financial independence by keeping the pension which their husbands, rightly, believed they would have. If they had not been service wives, they could have saved for themselves.

I strongly support the noble Baroness's amendment and hope that the debate will lead to serious consideration by the Government of the issues I have raised. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, is concerned about all these issues, and I honour her for that. But it is vital to recognise that these women are, in a thousand different ways, severely disadvantaged.

Baroness Fookes

My Lords, many excellent points have been made, and I shall not rehearse them. I make only two points. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, on her ingenuity and persistence in bringing forward this matter again and again. Secondly, in another place I represented a constituency with strong service connections. I am well aware of the difficulties that can arise for the unfortunate minority of women who would benefit from a continuation of this occupational pension. However, I am aware that in this matter the Ministry of Defence is notably stubborn and unyielding. It will take all the persistence of the noble Baroness, who, as a Minister, now has a place at the Ministry of Defence, to get that department to depart from long-established practice. I look to her to carry the matter forward; I have every confidence that she will.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the Gulf Veterans' Association. In recent times perhaps the widows of Gulf veterans are the ones we hear about in any numbers. We hear about those who are widowed because their husbands are killed in aircraft crashes, and so on. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, put it much more succinctly than I ever could. To live in sin is no longer a sin. We must take into account cohabitation, as my noble friend Lady Strange said.

Perhaps I may pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, as the first person who has really taken an interest in the Gulf veterans' widows. They very much appreciate it and are thankful. I heartily support the noble Baroness.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, when I took the Pensions Bill through your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, led a reasonably successful attack on my position. As a result of the defences I had to put up, I had to dig very deeply into the various details of those pension arrangements. As I made clear in the debate on Report, I have no problem with the position on the DSS war widows' pension; and neither does the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, whose amendment this is. The Government's position on this amendment and the last ones is perfectly sustainable: that in the DSS system the DSS war widows' pension should be treated in exactly the same way as the other DSS widows' pension; they are lost on remarriage.

However, when we come to the Armed Forces attributable pension, we are entitled to look at other pension schemes of a similar superannuated nature. The majority in the private sector would give a widow a pension for life. I accept that a minority in the public sector do so, but at least some do.

I think that the Armed Forces pension scheme should be considered entirely differently from schemes for other people working in the public sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, mentioned in her introduction, in the past two weeks two aircraft have crashed and young men have been killed—young men who left widows and children. That brings home the nature, whether it be in war or peace, of the dangers to which servicemen are always exposed.

I should find it easy to defend the position on the Armed Forces pension scheme against any other sector pension scheme. There are those who have been widowed in Northern Ireland, the Gulf, and the Falklands; and training creates many widows—fortunately not week after week, but it happens. I believe that we should put as much pressure as we can on the Government to make a change in the Armed Forces attributable pension scheme.

It is now even more important to do so because of another part of the Bill; namely, pension splitting on divorce. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, introduced the question of divorce. I underline the point. Two armed services families live side by side. In one case, the husband and wife divorce. The wife will receive a share of the pension pot and, frankly, can marry as many times as she likes—consecutively, not concurrently!—and keep the pension pot. Next door, unfortunately the husband crashes his aircraft in practice, and that lady receives her war widow's pension from the attributable pension scheme, but the moment she remarries she loses it. So she has been placed in a worse position than the lady who has divorced. I do not think that that is right.

Some noble Lords are saying, "Why didn't he do something about that when he was in a position to do so?". That is a perfectly fair point. I did try—it is my only defence—but obviously not very successfully. I sent letters to my noble friend Lord Howe. I chased my civil servants across to the MoD. My noble friend Lord Howe and I totally agreed. But the MoD has had a lot of practice at inertia and it is very good at it. I kept being told that it is all under review. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, told me on Report that it is all under review. I think that five years of reviewing are more than enough. I am depending on the two noble Baronesses to show (if I may use a Scots term) that the lasses are better than the lads and that they can make progress on this issue.

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords, I speak with considerable sympathy on this amendment. I admire the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, in her continuing hard work to press the Government to support this very special group of people. The forces family pension is an occupational pension, a contributory scheme, and I think that we are all now very aware that it is currently under review by the Ministry of Defence. I am pleased to note the presence here today of the Minister of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. It is our firm belief that payment of this pension should not depend on whether or not a widow chooses to remarry or live with a partner. It is true that not all occupational pension schemes continue in the event of remarriage—far from it. However, with particular regard to war widows, we feel strongly that an obligation is owed to their husbands who have put their lives at risk to serve this country on a continuing basis.

More than that, it is entirely wrong to assume that just because a widow remarries any loss of income incurred on the death of her husband is naturally restored. We have heard many of the arguments rehearsed, both today, in Committee and on Report. In short, it is our hope that the Government will now take action and support what I believe is a very strong case for the Ministry of Defence to change its policy with regard to war widows who wish to remarry or cohabit and so rebuild their lives.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)

My Lords, I have listened to this debate very carefully, and I have had the pleasure of meeting earlier this week with the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and Mrs Jenny Green of the War Widows Association to discuss the issue as my noble friend Lady Hollis undertook on my behalf in answering Amendment No. 51 at Report stage. I thank the noble Baroness warmly for the way she moved the amendment. I also thank the noble Earl for his kind remarks to me.

Let me say at the outset that we all have sympathy with the case that the noble Baroness argued. At one level, it is of course straightforward. She has argued that in logic and in equity the widow or widower of someone whose death is directly related to their service in the Armed Forces should retain their benefit from their spouse's occupational pension on remarriage or cohabitation. But although that is a straightforward uncomplicated proposition to put to your Lordships, the issues which it raises are far more complex and difficult to resolve. If the House will allow me, I shall try to explain.

Currently, as we have heard, the widow or widower of someone who has died for a reason which is directly attributable to their service in the Armed Forces receives not only the DSS widows' pension but also an occupational pension from the MoD (the Armed Forces Pension Scheme) which is enhanced to take account of the fact that their spouse's death was directly related to his or her service. Currently, both the DSS pension and the enhanced occupational pension are withdrawn if the widow remarries or cohabits.

The proposed amendment does not affect the withdrawal of the DSS pension, which is withdrawn for all widows who remarry or cohabit. However, the amendment, if passed, would ring-fence a war widow's MoD occupational pension for life and make it payable irrespective of remarriage or cohabitation.

In that respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was right when she argued that the amendment's provisions would reflect a number of private sector occupational pension schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made the same point also, I think, about public sector schemes. Indeed, the local authority scheme has a similar provision. But that local authority scheme is very differently funded.

The schemes for other emergency services—services where men and women put their lives at risk in pursuit of their public duty, such as the police service and the fire service—also withdraw occupational pensions on remarriage or cohabitation. So, of course, does the Civil Service scheme.

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, believes that this ring-fence for war widows is justified, but only in the short term. Naturally, she and the association want to see occupational pensions for life for all service widows. Of course they do. However, I am sure that many would immediately make what they perceive to be the entirely justifiable claim on behalf of their own members—their members in the police, their members in the fire service and their members across the public sector. Ring-fencing, while justifiable to some, is rarely justifiable to those on the edge of but outside the ring. Indeed, while doing a great deal of good to some, it may cause a very great deal of bitterness to others.

We cannot make the change that the noble Baroness seeks without taking into account the position of those others outside the immediate ring. We must do our best to treat everyone with equity and look at the needs of all those who are widowed as a result of the dedication to public duty of those they have lost.

We must also consider those other widows in the public services whose spouses have been lost through natural causes. We cannot set their position on one side; we cannot even do it temporarily. They, too, will find themselves outside the ring-fence. They will find themselves in an unfair and embittering position.

The highly persuasive point that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made about children could equally be applicable to widows whose spouses have died through natural causes. However, they are not covered by this amendment. The noble Baroness has told us that 2,650 widows would be covered. There are over 68,000 widows covered by the Armed Forces pension scheme who may also have young children and who may also be in need but who would not be covered by this amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was quite right. My noble friend Lady Hollis and I turned to each other while he was speaking and said, "Why did he not do it when he had the chance?" He said that he tried but that the MoD was inert. I assure the noble Lord that, under New Labour, the MoD is not inert. The MoD has set a personnel strategy for the Armed Forces. It was published in 1997 under New Labour and it covered a wide range of issues for the Armed Forces. It stated that a review of the pension arrangements would be required. The then Minister for the Armed Forces announced a review of the scheme in September 1998. The review is currently under way. It is not going to happen in the future; it is happening now. I also remind the House that my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, John Spellar, is also presently reviewing, on an ongoing basis, with the DSS the compensation arrangements for injury or death resulting from service.

Earl Russell

My Lords, does the Minister understand why her argument reminds me of the people who said, "You cannot give some people the vote; you might have to give it to all of them"?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I am afraid I do not understand that. We are dealing here mostly with real women who are in very difficult positions. While we have an enormous amount of sympathy for the women whom the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has drawn to our attention, I must in all equity point out to your Lordships that there are many widows whose husbands have died as a result of pursuing their duty and public service in dangerous and difficult circumstances who will feel embittered, upset and angry if this amendment is passed. Therefore, I do not accept the analogy, intellectually clever though it may be, as real in human terms.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that the issues are not being set on one side or ignored. Not only are they understood, they are under active consideration. Her Majesty's Government believe that the right way to tackle this issue is through the detailed review of the pension scheme, looking at a wide range of possible changes for members of the scheme, including improved pension arrangements for families.

Of course, a number of other options can be considered. There are many different ways of tackling these issues, which are reflected in different pension schemes in the public and private sectors. However, the point is that the review has to be far more wide-ranging and comprehensive than the noble Baroness's amendment. It must be fair, or as fair as it can be, to everybody, not only to those people who naturally command a certain amount of public sympathy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, drew our attention to the difficulties faced by women with peripatetic lifestyles in setting up superannuation. These issues are understood. Indeed, it was an understanding of those issues which prompted different arrangements under this Government 18 months ago for spouses in the Diplomatic Service. I remind the noble Baroness that we do understand these issues and that they will be taken into account.

Of course, I cannot give any undertakings about the outcome of the review. It would clearly be premature to do so; nor will I raise expectations that may not be fulfilled. However, I can assure the House that all the options will be considered. In that regard, I very much hope that the War Widows Association will give us the benefit of its advice and experience.

In view of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, will acknowledge that her very powerful advocacy has had its effect on ministerial thinking and that she will agree to withdraw the amendment. However, if the noble Baroness is unwilling to withdraw her amendment, I must ask the House to oppose it.

Baroness Strange

My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken today: my noble kinsman, Lord Russell; the noble Baroness, Lady Turner; my noble and gallant friend, Lord Craig of Radley; my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lord Northbourne; the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth; the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish; the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes; and indeed everyone who has spoken. All the war widows are deeply grateful for their support.

I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Hollis for allowing my noble friend Lady Symons to answer on behalf of the MoD. The MoD is, of course, the payer-out of the attributable forces family pension, although this money comes from the Treasury, whose money comes from us, the taxpayers.

I suspect that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, is also a friend of all the war widows. We greatly value her sympathetic and sensitive summing up. We also greatly value the time that she has spent with us. We are very grateful to her for her sympathy, lime and understanding.

However, this issue has gone on for long enough. We heard exactly the same arguments from the MoD in 1995. We are referring to 2,650 ladies, not 68,000, and we hope that there will not be many more. All those beautiful ladies who picnicked in Westminster Hall and were sitting in the Galleries of your Lordships' Chamber on Monday are growing older by the minute. All those lovely children, who some of your Lordships met, are growing up without much chance of a second father. Time is not on their side, nor on ours. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

3.58 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 166; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 1
Ackner, L. Brightman, L.
Addington, L. Brookeborough, V.
Alderdice, L. Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.
Aldington, L. Cadman, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L. Calverley, L.
Annaly, L. Campbell of Alloway, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L. Carlisle, E.
L. Carver, L.
Arran, E. Castle of Blackburn, B.
Ashbourne, L. Chadlington, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Charteris of Amisfield, L.
Avebury, L. Chesham, L.
Bathurst, E. Clancarty, E.
Berners, B. Clement-Jones, L.
Bledisloe, V. Cochrane of Cults, L.
Bradshaw, L. Cockfield, L.
Cornwallis, L. Morris, L.
Cox, B. Mountevans, L.
Craig of Radley, L. Munster, E.
Cross, V. Naseby, L.
Cuckney, L. Newby, L.
Dacre of Glanton, L. Northbourne, L.
Darnley, E. Norton, L.
Davidson, V. Norton of Louth, L.
De L'Isle, V. Nunburnholme, L.
Denham, L. O'Cathain, B.
Dholakia, L. Onslow of Woking, L.
Dundee, E. Oxford, Bp.
Dunleath, L. Oxfuird, V.
Ebury, L. Palmer, L.
Eden of Winton, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Elibank, L. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Erroll, E. Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Exmouth, V. Prior, L.
Ezra, L. Pym, L.
Falkland, V. Radnor, E.
Ferrers, E Reay, L.
Fookes, B. Redesdale, L.
Freyberg, L. Rees, L.
Gainsborough, E. Rennard, L
Gardner of Parkes, B. Renton, L.
Geddes, L. Ridley, V,
Geraint, L. Rix, L.
Gilmour of Craigmillar, L. Rogan, L.
Glanusk, L. Russell, E. [Teller]
Goodhart, L. Russell-Johnston, L.
Gray, L. St. John of Bletso, L.
Greenway, L. Sandberg, L.
Grey, E. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Hampton, L. Sandwich, E.
Hamwee, B. Sandys, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Shannon, E.
Harris of Richmond, B. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Haslam, L. Shaughnessy, L.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Holderness, L. Slim, V.
HolmPatrick, L. Smith of Clifton, L.
Hooson, L. Southwark, Bp.
Hylton-Foster, B. Stair, E.
Ilchester, E. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Ironside, L. Strange, B. [Teller]
Iveagh, E. Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Jellicoe, E. Suffield, L.
Kimball, L. Swinfen, L
Kinloss, Ly. Swinton, E,
Kintore, E. Taverne, L.
Lane of Horsell, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L
Linklater of Butterstone, B. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Liverpool, E. Thurso, V.
Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E. Tordoff, L.
Long, V. Turner of Camden, B.
MacFarlane of Bearsden, L. Vivian, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
McNair, L. Warnock, B.
Mar, C. Watson of Richmond, L.
Masham of Ilton, B. Weatherill, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L. Westbury, L.
Methuen, L. Westmorland, E.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. Wigoder, L.
Milverton, L. Wilberforce, L.
Molyneaux of Killead, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
Monro of Langholm, L. Williamson of Horton, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L. Windlesham, L.
Acton, L. Barnett, L.
Ahmed, L. Bassam of Brighton, L.
Amos, B. Berkeley, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Blackstone, B.
Bach, L. Borrie, L.
Bragg. L. Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord
Brett, L. Privy Seal)
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Brookman, L. Kennet, L.
Burlison, L. Kilbracken, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Kirkhill, L.
Carter, L. [Teller] Lea of Crondall, L.
Christopher, L. Levy, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Lipsey, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Lockwood, B.
Crawley, B. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
David, B. Longford, E.
Desai, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Diamond, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Donoughue, L. [Teller]
Dormand of Easington, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Dubs, L. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Elder, L. Merlyn-Rees, L.
Evans of Parkside, L. Milner of Leeds, L.
Ewing of Kirkford, L. Molloy, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. Monkswell, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Montague of Oxford, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Gale, B. Nicol, B.
Gladwin of Clee, L. Northfield, L.
Goldsmith, L. Orme, L.
Goudie, B. Peston, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Pitkeathley, B.
Grabiner, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Puttnam, L.
Grantchester, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Gregson, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Grenfell, L. Sawyer, L.
Hardy of Wath, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Harris of Haringey, L. Serota, B.
Shepherd, L.
Harrison, L. Shore of Stepney, L.
Haskel, L. Simon, V.
Hayman, B. Skelmersdale L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Strabolgi, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Howells of St Davids, B. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Varley, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Whitty, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Wilkins, B.
Chancellor) Williams of Elvel, L
Islwyn, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

4.10 p.m.

Baroness Castle of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 2: After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—