HL Deb 17 November 2004 vol 666 cc1541-51

Any statutory provision or rule of law requiring a pension to be taken in the form of an annuity by the age of 75 shall be amended so that the age limit is 85."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness spent some time this evening discussing the proposal on drawdown implemented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a while ago. She did not, in fact, go into any detail on this during any of our previous discussions in Committee, on Report or at Third Reading. But what she said this evening confirms what we have always felt—that is, that this proposal is so complicated that it is unlikely to be taken up by many people, in the same way that the Chancellor's tax credits are not taken up. It cannot in any way be compared with the amendment which we originally tabled and which the Commons have now returned to us; nor, indeed, can it be compared with the simplicity of the amendment before us this evening.

I start by taking up some points made by Mr Malcolm Wicks in another place in replying to the debate on these issues. It is interesting that the arguments that he put forward are not the same as those that the noble Baroness made this evening on the same points about privilege, and so on. In response to my earlier intervention, she said that he was reading out his brief. It may simply be that he has difficulty in reading out his brief. In any event, it cannot have been a misprint because his private office will have checked what he said and will have altered it only if there was justification for doing so.

I want to take up the issue of privilege because the amendment has been returned to your Lordships' House in a slightly strange way. The arguments put forward by Mr Wicks in another place were as follows. He said that the Lords amendment, allows annuities not to be paid where they might otherwise be paid". That has nothing whatever to do with privilege. He continued, saying that, it extends tax relief by allowing more people in some circumstances to pass their tax privileged pension pot on to their survivors". In moving my amendment, which has now been returned from the Commons, I made it absolutely clear that we do not for one moment suggest that the proceeds of the pension pot should not be taxed in an appropriate way. So that point is totally invalid and Mr Wicks simply does not understand what was said. He went on to say that, it allows in some circumstances for contributions to be made to pension schemes beyond the age of 75". It is possible to do so anyway, and so I have no idea why he said that. He then added that, it reduces the instances when part of the tax relief given to contributions is recouped when an annuity is paid, and so on.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/04; cols. 1220–21.] That, again, is not the same as the argument which the noble Baroness put to us this evening. None the less, despite the curiosity of the arguments put forward by Mr Wicks, the Commons have returned the matter to us with a claim of privilege.

We know what happens at the other end. If a particular issue is discussed and debated and if' the Commons disagree with your Lordships' House, a committee is set up which retires to a little room behind the Speaker's Chair—I see the look of familiarity on the face of the noble Lord who is sitting behind the Minister—and they cook up some reasons. Strangely enough, the reasons often bear little resemblance to the debate that has taken place. The committee is chaired by the Minister in charge of the Bill.

As I understand it, the normal form of words is that the amendment is rejected because it would involve a charge on public funds. The Commons do not offer any further reasons, trusting that that reason may be deemed sufficient. That is to say, they claim privilege. However, the form of words for this amendment is not conventional. It says: Because it would alter the area of taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason".

Privilege is dependent on two things: ways and means, which is taxation, on the one hand, or the issue of supply, which is public expenditure, on the other. We are not allowed to interfere in those matters. It is put too broadly in the rather curious and unprecedented words—at least I cannot find a precedent form that is used in the amendment returning from the Commons—that it would alter the area of taxation. The House passes many Bills that alter the area of taxation and on which no claim of privilege is made.

Lord Lea of Crondall

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can explain a point. What economists call tax expenditures—for example, tax reliefs—are precisely the same as a form of taxation.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, as I am trying to explain, that is not what we are doing in the amendment that has been returned by the Commons. More particularly, it is certainly not applicable to the amendment that we are now discussing.

When we discussed the original amendment, which has now been returned, I distinguished between whether there should be a requirement to take an annuity and whether it should be compulsory to take it at the age of 75. I have put forward the arguments in the Watson Wyatt report and I do not in any way retract from what I said, despite the remarks made by the noble Baroness. From that report, it is very clear that 58.8 per cent would prefer not to take it as annuity at all and 12.1 per cent would prefer to take it later.

That side of the argument raises all kinds of issues which we have been discussing. I understand that the Commons are not prepared to accept it. For that reason, I have tabled an amendment on the second leg of the argument; namely, that instead of being compelled to take it at age 75, they should be able to take it up to the age of 85. It will be clear to your Lordships that that is a compromise. It is not what I want, as I would have preferred the original amendment. None the less, it deals with substantial problems that arise in relation to the present arrangement.

Many people object to the fact that they are required to take an annuity at a particular moment in time. Instead of being able to exercise their discretion about whether to take it at a certain point or later, when they may believe that annuity rates will go up, they are prevented from doing so. That particularly concerns those approaching the age of 75 at the moment. I regret to tell your Lordships that I am not in that category.

6.45 p.m.

The important point is that life expectancy has undoubtedly risen. That is not in dispute. It is interesting to look at the history of the matter. As far as we can establish, the argument for taking one's pension pot in the form of an annuity dates back as far as 1921. In 1956, the age of 70 was established. Very interestingly, in 1976, only 20 years later, it was raised from 70 to 75. It is a long time since 1976, a longer time than elapsed before the previous increase. It seems not unreasonable to suggest that the time has come for the age to be raised to 80. That would mean that many people would have discretion to delay taking their annuity, if they wished to do so.

I shall make one point absolutely clear. The original amendment is established Conservative policy, and we shall bring it in as soon as we come into office—I believe in a comparatively short time. That is our clear position, and that is what we want to go for. None the less, there is a case for raising the limit now to help those approaching 75, and the amendment would do that.

On life expectancy, the noble Baroness referred to a letter, a copy of which the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, was courteous enough to send to me. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, he also sent a copy to the press and she did not have an opportunity to make it clear whether she had or had not misled the House, as the noble Lord suggested. That was unfortunate. It was not in line with the way in which we would normally behave in this House. It would have been better if the noble Lord had waited for a reply before going public on the issue. The argument that the noble Baroness has put forward this evening for why she quoted the figure, and why she does not believe it was misleading, is very technical. We wait to see what point the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, makes in response to what she has said. What is beyond doubt is that life expectancy has risen, which strongly supports the Motion that I am moving as a response to the Commons rejection of the amendment that we originally proposed in another place.

I have a couple more points. First, the noble Baroness says that the amendment will help only the rich. We reject that view. We do not believe that the amendment, or the other one, helps only the rich. Many people, who perhaps have retired, have more than one pension arrangement and have not cashed in—and may not now wish to cash in—their pension pots. However, they are not necessarily well off at all, but they may have kept a little in reserve and want to cash it in when they think that the moment is right. They would be helped by our original amendment, and they would be helped by what I now propose. They are not in any way only the privileged few—a slightly pejorative expression that the noble Baroness has used. A discussion took place in the other place about how many pensions individuals might have, but I shall not go into that issue.

In her closing remarks the noble Baroness said that we had had a marvellous report from Turner. It set out the arguments very clearly, but I do not believe there was much that was new either to the noble Baroness, myself or to many noble Lords. It is inconceivable that Mr Turner could succeed in thinking up any argument on this issue that we have not heard already. I cannot believe that he is so original in his methods of thinking that he would be able to do that. We know all the arguments on the issue. I believe that they support the amendment that I have pleasure in moving. I very much hope that the House will accept it. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 359, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 359A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 359B in lieu thereof".—(Lord Higgins.)

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay

My Lords, let me start by making it clear that noble Lords on these Benches support the amendment. If we had been able to do so, and it were not a Motion which could carry only one signature, we would have put our names to it.

I shall return in a moment to the short substantive reasons why we support the amendment. Clearly, in view of the noble Baroness's opening remarks I should say a few words on that topic. I am sorry that I upset her with the points I made and with my questioning on this final area of disagreement after we all agreed that after Third Reading the Bill generally left this House much improved by the efforts on all sides.

I want to make it clear that there is a wide discrepancy between the figures the noble Baroness gave and those in the Turner report. The Turner report says—and I will explain how this came about—that it took the Government Actuary's 2002 base projections as its base case assumptions. It then points out that by 2004 the Government Actuary's department—that is what Turner is talking about; it is not something it has dreamt up—said that life expectancy at 65 would be 14.8 years and that today it is believed to be 19 years. That is what I was basing my figures and my request on.

Obviously, in normal circumstances if we had been in Grand Committee or something like that and there was no time pressure, one would wait. However, as soon as I read the noble Baroness's remarks in Hansard I rang up her private office. I was told what her figures had been based on. In particular, let me point out—and I shall be interested when we get the technical notes; we do not want to go into too much detail today—that office said to me quite clearly that the figures she had given me were based on a 2001 projection of 16 years, even on the basis that she prefers. I said, "Please send me any more information if you can".

However, in the situation we were in, with the matter coming up in the House of Commons in the afternoon, it was exceptionally important that we got our position across and on the record and also that my honourable friend Steve Webb was able to raise the matter.

I listened carefully to the Minister. She said that life expectancy at 65 is now 82. Is it not the case that, even on her own basis, life expectancy is now 17 years and not 16 years? So, obviously to that extent we would welcome a correction.

We support the substance of the amendment. Clearly, the exact level at which one puts the cap depends to some extent on what view one takes of life expectancy. But the principle of a substantial increase on 75 is incontrovertible, whichever life expectancy rate increase one prefers.

I have some sympathy with the arguments expressed both in this and the other House by the Government on the question of who will benefit. It is not only rich people who will benefit. But I think that we should accept that on balance this will be of more benefit to better-off people. That does not mean that just because people are better off they should not be treated fairly and that the rules for them should not reflect major changes in life patterns and life expectancy.

So, even accepting that, we believe that this is a sensible amendment. The time is long overdue, if not for this restriction to be abolished, at least for it to be substantially increased. On that basis, we strongly support the amendment.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market

My Lords, I was fascinated by the Minister's concluding paragraphs—if I heard them aright. After spending about nine-tenths of her time explaining why her mind was set absolutely against this proposal, she gave herself a let-out clause—an escape hatch, as it were. She finished by saying that she recognised that this was one of the few elements of compulsion in the pension scene. She recognised all the arguments about life expectancy and longevity and that if the Pensions Commission came back with different arguments in favour of it that she would be prepared to look at that.

Of course, all that was based simply on the increase in life expectancy. We know that already. We do not need to be told that by the Pensions Commission. So I think that the Minister was giving herself a little bit of an escape hatch, but actually we do not need it; we know already.

I want briefly to make three points in support of the amendment. First, the Minister spent some time saying—and certainly she is correct for many people—that over the piece one would have better returns from taking the annuity earlier rather than waiting until a much later age. That is not the point. In many cases that would be true and many people would be advised to do that. But it is not for the Government to say that; it is for individuals to make their own decisions on these matters. There is a question of choice here, to which my noble friend Lord Higgins referred in his speech when winding-up the other day. I entirely agree that it is a very important element in this argument.

Secondly, the Minister talked a great deal about avoiding inheritance tax as a result of raising the age to 85 or removing the requirement altogether. I have to say that in the vast majority of cases the inheritance tax would be 40 per cent on those sums if they were passed on and not consumed during the person's lifetime. So there is a tax taken at the end of the day in return for the tax benefits that are gained from making the contributions to the personal pension in the first place.

Finally, I want to make one point about the current age cut-off. In our last debate the Minister made the point, quite fairly, that interest and annuity rates are lower now. The annuity rates are lower partly in response to low inflation. So, if low inflation continues people are not particularly worse off from having lower interest rates.

That argument is based entirely on the supposition that inflation rates will remain where they are. I challenge anyone to suggest that that will necessarily be true. So what about the situation where somebody aged 73 has to take out an annuity at a very low annuity level because of low interest rates and four years later finds that inflation starts to move ahead substantially again? That would have been a wrong decision to make, forced by the compulsion of taking an annuity at the age of 75. I think that that is a very good reason for raising the age barrier from 75 to give people the individual choice. That is why I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I shall certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in the Division Lobby tonight. Perhaps I may tentatively suggest to him that, assuming he wins and the other place rejects his amendment, it would be sensible to compromise tomorrow by splitting the difference and proposing an age of 80 for the compulsory taking out of annuities.

The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, believes that people are living a full six and a half years longer on average than was forecast when the annuity rules were first framed. The noble Baroness at one point seemed to suggest that it was three and a half years and at another point that it was six years, but one way or another it is certain that there is increased longevity compared to a couple of decades ago.

If you average out those forecasts they come to a little over five years. So I think that there really can be no excuse for not raising the age to at least 80.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I will be very brief. I know that there is other, even more urgent business awaiting your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised two points, of which the substantive one was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor. The first point was the point of privilege. The noble Lord has experience of the other place that I do not. I can only tell him what I understand to be the situation. As I understand it, privilege includes the extension of tax relief, which is the effect of the noble Lord's amendment and which is therefore interfering with financial arrangements. I am therefore assured that, on the grounds that I cited—this is not to argue against the noble Lord's amendment, but on the grounds for rejecting the original amendment—privilege therefore applies. However, like others, I am now reading my brief on that point.

On the substantive point, which the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, also made, pension provision is voluntary. No one has to save in a pension pot through a money purchase scheme if he chooses not to do so. Indeed, many people today are going for buy-to-let and other arrangements. If they choose to save in a pensions pot, they understand that they will be required to annuitise but, in order to attract people to that pension pot knowing that they will be required to annuitise, they will enjoy the benefits of tax relief that effectively roll-up in value to something like 55p in the pound. Having chosen that pension pot—there was no compulsion—they then, having attracted the tax relief that has artificially inflated that pension pot courtesy of taxpayers, normally with far lower incomes than they and often without themselves having an occupational scheme, want to turn it into both a savings draw-down account and a potential legacy.

My argument is that basically, if people enter a pension pot arrangement, they know what the rules are and that, as a result, they attract extremely generous tax relief that other sections of society do not attract. If, instead, they want not to turn it not into an annuity, but into a savings pot or a legacy, they have other vehicles with which to save, ranging from property to fine art and fine wine: take your choice. We do not have to seek to deform—I use the word advisedly—an annuity arrangement in order to ask it to do other things.

There may be a philosophical difference between us on this, but that is the Government's position. People entered that arrangement voluntarily. Having done so and attracted hugely generous tax relief, they now seek to change the original contract, so to speak, with the taxpayer under which they entered an annuity arrangement. I understand the argument about longevity, and so on. We can argue about that. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, I understand that the difference between 2001 and 2003 is 0.3 years but, as I said, we will tease that out in some of the technical papers.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay

My Lords, is life expectancy on that basis, as both she and Mr Wicks yesterday at the other end of the Corridor appeared to say, 17 years or 16?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, as I said, it is 0.3 years extra. The figure for 2001, on which I drew originally, gave a life expectancy of 16 years for men at the age of 65. The figure for 2003, two years later, has become 16.3. I said just now that it was 0.3 years extra and have now spelt that out in detail. That is on the same basis of the period of life expectancy.

I return to the original point. We cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment, or even the so-called compromise being offered from other Benches. Our position rests that we believe that the arrangements for annuities now are very generous in tax privilege terms. Between the ages of 50 and 75, people must take their annuity pot. Of course people would like low inflation and high annuity rates. Would not we all? But we know that that is not the world in which we live. Of course annuities are pooled risk but, at the end of the day, a pension pot and the requirement to annuitise was a contract voluntarily entered in to and then greatly enhanced by taxpayers, some of whom will be much worse off than those benefiting from those arrangements. We have not yet heard any arguments that suggest that we should disturb that arrangement.

If the Adair Turner commission reports differently, the Government will obviously take that into account. As I made clear in my statement, we will consider any of its recommendations with care and urgency. Your Lordships would not expect me to go beyond that: I do not know what it will recommend and cannot predict what our response would be to any recommendations that it may make. To suggest that we are somehow denying choice to people when their original choice was made to enter a pension arrangement and therefore an annuity is unreasonable. I hope that, with that explanation of our philosophy—that we believe that what we are arguing is fair and reasonable and that we do not think it right to deform the original intention of that pension contract, which was designed to ensure a secure income in retirement—your Lordships will reject the amendment.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, I shall make only two points. First, I do not believe that the amendment alters—that is the crucial word—tax relief. Secondly, it is right that we should press for a change to the age of 85. Given that all the legislation—and this Bill is at the end of the queue—is right up against the buffers, I very much hope that when the Bill goes to another place, it will accept that an amendment of this sort is appropriate. We have deployed nearly all the arguments; I do not intend to repeat them now. I seek to test the opinion of the House.

7.5 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 359B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 207; Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 2
Addington, L. Denham, L.
Alderdice, L. Dixon-Smith, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. D'Souza, B.
Alliance, L. Dykes, L.
Ampthill, L. Eccles of Moulton, B.
Anelay of St Johns, B. Eden of Winton, L.
Arran, E. Elis-Thomas, L.
Ashcroft, L. Elles, B.
Astor, V. Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Astor of Hever, L. Elton, L.
Attlee, E. Erroll, E.
Avebury, L. Falkland, V.
Baker of Dorking, L. Falkner of Margravine, B.
Barker, B. Feldman, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Ferrers, E.
Bell, L. Fookes, B.
Blatch, B. Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Bledisloe, V. Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B. Freeman, L.
Bowness, L. Garden, L.
Bradshaw, L. Geddes, L.
Bridgeman, V. Glenarthur, L.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L. Glentoran, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L. Goodhart, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Goschen, V.
Buscombe, B. Greaves, L.
Byford, B. Greengross, B.
Carlile of Berriew, L. Hamwee, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Hanham, B.
Chadlington, L. Harris of Peckham, L.
Chorley, L. Harris of Richmond, B.
Clement-Jones, L. Hayhoe, L.
Cobbold, L. Henley, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Higgins, L.
Colwyn, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller] Hogg, B.
Courtown, E. Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Cox, B. Home, E.
Craig of Radley, L. Howard of Rising, L.
Crathorne, L. Howe, E.
Crawford and Balcarres, E. Howe of Aberavon, L.
Cuckney, L. Howe of Idlicote, B.
Cumberlege, B. Howell of Guildford, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B. Hunt of Wirral, L.
Dean of Harptree, L. Inglewood, L.
Jacobs, L. Reay, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Redesdale, L.
Jopling, L. Rees, L.
Kalms, L. Rees-Mogg, L.
Kimball, L. Rennard, L.
King of Bridgwater, L. Renton, L.
Kingsland, L. Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L. Roberts of Conwy, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Liverpool, E. Roper, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L. Rotherwick, L.
Lucas, L. Russell-Johnston, L.
Lyell, L. Ryder of Wensum, L.
McAlpine of West Green, L. Saatchi, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L. St John of Fawsley, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Sandwich, E.
Maclennan of Rogart, L. Scott of Needham Market, B.
McNally, L. Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Maddock, B. Selborne, E.
Mancroft, L. Selsdon, L.
Mar, C. Sharman, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Masham of Ilton, B. Sharples, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Methuen, L. Shutt of Greetland, L.
Michie of Gallanach, B. Skelmersdale, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. Slim, V.
Miller of Hendon, B. Smith of Clifton, L.
Monro of Langholm, L. Steel of Aikwood, L.
Monson, L. Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Montrose, D. Stewartby, L.
Moore of Lower Marsh, L. Strathclyde, L.
Morris of Bolton, B. Taverne, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Thatcher, B.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Thomas of Gresford, L.
Neill of Bladen, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Neuberger, B. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Newby, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Newton of Braintree, L. Tordoff, L.
Noakes, B. Tugendhat, L.
Northbrook, L. Vallance of Tummel, L.
Northesk, E. Vinson, L.
Northover, B. Waddington, L.
Norton of Louth, L. Wade of Chorlton, L.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. Wakeham, L.
Onslow, E. Waldegrave of North Hill, L.
Palmer, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Palumbo, L. Walmsley, B.
Patten, L. Walpole, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L. Warnock, B.
Peel, E. Watson of Richmond, L.
Perry of Southwark, B. Wilcox, B.
Peyton of Yeovil, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
Platt of Writtle, B. Williamson of Horton, L.
Plumb, L. Willoughby de Broke, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. Windlesham, L.
Razzall, L. Wolfson, L.
Acton, L. Bragg, L.
Ahmed, L. Brett, L.
Alli, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council) Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Andrews, B. Campbell-Savours, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Carter, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Carter of Coles, L.
Bach, L. Chandos, V.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Christopher, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Bhattacharyya, L. Clinton-Davis, L.
Billingham, B. Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Borrie, L. Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B. Lea of Crondall, L.
Dahrendorf, L. Leitch, L.
David, B. Lipsey, L.
Davies of Coity, L. Lockwood, B.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. McDonagh, B.
Dixon, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Drayson, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Dubs, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Elder, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Evans of Parkside, L. McKenzie of Luton, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Mallalieu, B.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor) Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Merlyn-Rees, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Filkin, L. Morgan of Huyton, B.
Fitt, L. O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L. Ouseley, L.
Gale, B. Parekh, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Pendry, L.
Giddens, L. Plant of Highfield, L.
Gilbert, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Gilmour of Craigmillar, L. Prosser, B.
Golding, B. Prys-Davies, L.
Goldsmith, L. Radice, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L. Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Goudie, B. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Gould of Brookwood, L. Richard, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Robertson of Port Ellen, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Rooker, L.
Grantchester, L. Rosser, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Grocott, L. [Teller] Sawyer, L.
Harris of Haringey, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Harrison, L. Sewel, L.
Hart of Chilton, L. Simon, V.
Haskel, L. Snape, L.
Haworth, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hayman, B. Strabolgi, L.
Henig, B. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Thornton, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. Tomlinson, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Triesman, L.
Howarth of Breckland, B. Truscott, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Tunnicliffe, L.
Hoyle, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Uddin, B.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Wall of New Barnet, B.
Irvine of Lairg, L. Warner, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L. Whitty, L.
Jones, L. Wilkins, B.
King of West Bromwich, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Laird, L. Young of Norwood Green, L.
Layard, L. Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

7.18 p.m.