HL Deb 19 July 2000 vol 615 cc1085-96

79.—(1) A person who is above the age of 75 and who is entitled to a retirement pension of any category shall be entitled to an increase of the pension to be known as the "age addition".

(2) A person who is in receipt of a pension or allowance payable by the Secretary of State by virtue of any enactment or instrument (whether passed or made before or after this Act is passed), and who—

  1. (a) is above the age of 75, and
  2. (b) fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed,
shall be entitled to an increase of the pension or allowance, also to be known as the "age addition".

(3) A person who is above the age of 80 and is in receipt of age addition shall be entitled to an increase in the age addition, to be known as the "further age addition".

(4) Age addition and further age addition shall be payable for the life of the person entitled, at weekly rates to be determined by the Secretary of State in regulations."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. It is one which we were unable to vote upon at the Report stage because it did not come on for debate until nearly 10 p.m.

What we are proposing here is that there should be a substantial addition to the basic state pension for pensioners who reach the age of 75, and a further and equally substantial addition on reaching the age of 80. This would, of course, replace the present absurd addition of 25p a week at the age of 80.

The amendment does not specify the amount, for the obvious reason that the actual rate will need to be varied from year to year by regulations made by the Secretary of State. A recently published Liberal Democrat policy paper on ageing has proposed that there should be a £5 addition at 75 and a further £5 addition at the age of 80. Those are the figures we have in mind.

The policy paper also proposes that there should be a £5 per week increase in the basic state pension for all pensioners as well as the age additions for the older pensioners. This amendment is confined to the age additions.

We are particularly concerned with the older pensioners because older pensioners have, in some respects, greater needs. They need more heating and warmer clothes. They may need special food. They may need to use more expensive local shops because they cannot travel to the supermarket and bring back a heavy load of groceries.

More important than that, old people as a group have lower pensions than younger pensioners. Occupational pensions are linked to earnings, in general, at the date of retirement, but after retirement they are subject at best to an increase in line with the retail price index. That increase may in many cases be capped at 5 per cent. Therefore, so long as real earnings continue to increase, those who retired the longest time ago will have the lowest pensions. Furthermore, the same will be true of the state second pensions. It is also, of course, a fact—and this is a significant fact—that the older pension cohort consists disproportionately of women—who live longer than men—and of pensioners living on their own, because so many of them are widows or widowers. Indeed, we know that some 40 per cent of people over the age of 80 do not have adequate state, occupational or personal pensions and have to rely on the minimum income guarantee to supplement their pension.

The Minister has said many times before—and will no doubt say again this evening—that age is not a good test of need. She will say that disparity of incomes between older pensioners as a group and younger pensioners as a group is much smaller than the disparity of incomes between richer and poorer pensioners within each age cohort. That statement is, of course, perfectly true. I do not contest it for a moment.

The Minister will say that we should therefore concentrate extra money on the poorest pensioners through the minimum income guarantee. Of course I welcome the minimum income guarantee. It plays—and will in any foreseeable circumstances continue to play—an important part in ensuring that the poorest pensioners have the means to secure a basic standard of living. However, the logical conclusion of that argument, which we have heard from the Minister, is that we should get rid of the right to a basic pension altogether and should concentrate only on the poorest among the elderly.

But concentration on the minimum income guarantee ignores the fact that people who have contributed to their parents' pensions through their own national insurance contributions feel—and rightly feel—a need to be fairly treated when they come to draw their own pensions. They do not see an increase in the minimum income guarantee as fair if those who are not on the minimum income guarantee get no benefit for themselves

The reaction of pensioners to last year's 75p a week increase in the basic pension shows what happens when pensioners feel that they are being treated unfairly, as I believe they plainly were last year. Yesterday we had a spending review promising extra expenditure of £43 billion a year. What do the pensioners get out of that? I will tell you exactly what they get out of that, they get a new telephone service to make it easier for them to contact the Benefits Agency. That is all that they get out of the spending review.

The Minister may try to hide behind the technical defence that social security benefits are annually managed expenditure and the review deals with something different, which is departmental expenditure limits. But, let me say now that that will not do. Page 5 of the spending review makes it clear that the £43 billion is based on the assumption that social security spending will increase in real terms only by 1.2 per cent a year up to the end of the year 2001–02. That amount is already almost entirely committed to the increase in the spending on the working families' tax credit and in effect leaves nothing for improvement to basic pensions beyond a rise in line with the cost of living.

I predict that the fury of pensioners at their 75p per week increase last year is as nothing compared with what will be their fury when they realise that they are excluded from the goodies handed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. The Minister may, of course, say that if more of that £43 billion goes to pensioners it means there will be less for other good and worthy causes. My answer to that is, so be it. The Chancellor yesterday poured out a cornucopia of gifts, but what he gave to pensioners was no more than a tiny crumb. The additions which we propose are the minimum that is required to do justice to pensioners. I beg to move.

7.30 p.m.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, the noble Lord has made a clarion call for pensioners and as somebody who is over 75, I am extremely sympathetic. However, he does not say what the age addition should be, so we have no idea what sort of sum of money is involved. I should think it would be a very large sum indeed. It is entirely inappropriate for this House, as revising Chamber, to suggest such a thing.

Of course, it is an excellent idea from the point of view of pensioners. I am not in a position to judge whether or not age is a good criterion but I know that the Government consider that it is not. I do not believe that this House should attempt to pass such an amendment.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, after the events of yesterday and the speech which we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it is clear that we on these Benches are certainly the most prudent of the three parties in terms of economic management. For that reason, I do not feel able to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. However, I draw his attention to the recent statements which have been made by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition as regards our own proposals on the subject.

But, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I thought it appropriate, before taking a view on the amendment, to see what happened in the spending review announced yesterday. It is not insignificant that that is now entitled "Spending Review 2000" rather than "Comprehensive Spending Review". No doubt the Minister will tell us why it is not called the "Comprehensive Spending Review". Our view is—and this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—that it is probably because pensioners seem to be excluded to a remarkable extent.

I thought that that might be a rather cynical view and felt that I should see exactly what was said in the spending review. So I looked under "Departmental Reviews", which refers to Section 18, Department of Social Security, DSS, page 81. However, page 81 refers to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The pensions statements seem not to be there at all. I carried out further intensive research and found that there is a Department of Social Security Section 18 on page 87. I am not quite sure how that happened.

At all events, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right to say that the reality of the situation is that all there is for pensioners is a new phone line which is to be established. Perhaps in passing the noble Baroness will tell us whether that will be a freephone number.

What are pensioners likely to find if they ring up and ask various questions? I suppose someone could ring up and ask whether it is the case that quite a lot of the vast amount of money which the Chancellor is now proposing to spend is as a result of the changes previously made to advance corporation tax, which deprived pensioners of some £5 billion or more.

Alternatively, pensioners may wish to inquire into a number of other matters. In particular, they may wish to clarify what was meant by the Chancellor in the four lines which he devoted to this subject yesterday, when he said: I can also confirm that, in the autumn, the Government will publish our proposed plans for a new pensioner credit, with a view to further announcements on a Budget timetable".—[Officia Report, Commons, 18/7/2000; col. 224.] Of course, we are not in the least bit clear as to what the position will be in relation to a new pensioners' credit. What seems highly likely is that the Government will fiddle the figures in the same way that they did for the working families' tax credit by not conforming with internationally accepted standards for such matters to be treated as public expenditure or as a tax reduction. But clearly, it is the case that this should be treated as a public expenditure increase. But there is no sign of that whatever in the so-called spending review.

Therefore, we hope that the Minister will clarify those matters, because they are all clearly relevant to the proposals for increased public expenditure which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in his amendments. We look forward to hearing her defence of the Government's position as regards the overall expenditure situation.

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, the position of pensioners in the Comprehensive Spending Review has been criticised by both the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Goodhart. Does the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, not agree with me that, out of the £43 billion spending commitment in that review, the extra sums to be spent on health, for example, will have a very beneficial impact on many pensioners who are consumers of the health service?

Lord Higgins

My Lords, clearly, that is so. But these amendments relate to their pensions. We merely have the throw-away four lines by the Chancellor in the course of his speech which promise jam tomorrow but not jam today. I do not dispute at all the point made by the noble Baroness. Of course, that is so. But one needs also to take into account the extent to which the Government's proposals so far have an adverse effect on many pensioners.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I shall not dispute the claim made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that in the funding of pensions, his is the most prudent party. The figures which I have, which I hope are roughly the same as those of the noble Lord, show that his party is committing to pensions, over and above what the Government are committing, the sum of £300 million, whereas we on these Benches are offering to commit £3.5 billion. There is a distinct difference.

In advancing that commitment, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, illustrated why his party, like Sir Walter Raleigh, in 1066 and All That, is left over from the previous reign. If you follow questions of British social attitudes as regards whether people prefer tax cuts or increases in spending, the proportion favouring increases in spending has risen every year since 1983. At least in the past five years, the balance has clearly changed. The Government, very belatedly, are showing faint signs of realising that. The party of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has not yet realised it. It no doubt soon will.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that I have spent a lot of time reading the passages in the Companion about the financial privilege of another place. As I understand it, the position is—and I have checked it with some care—that this House is always free to ask and the other place is always free to refuse, from which it does not necessarily follow that the other place will refuse on any particular occasion. There are people in another place who feel a certain anxiety about whether they will hold their seats. Some of those people believe that the funding of pensions will make a considerable contribution to the answer to that question.

Like my noble friend, I was absolutely astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not take the opportunity in what he said yesterday to provide any increase in pensions. I appreciate, of course, all the technical arguments why it may not have been expedient to do so. But, in political terms, this is an emergency which has been coming for quite some time. I have seen it coming since I spoke to the Brent Pensioners' Forum in 1997, which is a while ago now. It has reached the point where, almost like the dissolution of a marriage, the trust of voters in the Labour Party is on the edge of disappearing beyond the point of recall.

I suspect that yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, and threw away, his last chance. If the effect of his actions is to make Mr Hague Prime Minister, one might wonder why he did that. That is not for me to speculate. But, if that is the case, we have this year left. If pensioners are to be satisfied, something must be done now. We can no longer have before us the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, which was disposed of at Report by a show of power that I have not seen produced by a government since the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was in No. 10 Downing Street.

We could not have supported that amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, knows very well. We too have prudence, but we do not put it in quite the same place as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, does. But since that amendment is not before us, the amendment which my noble friend Lord Goodhart has moved is the only show in town. So, if people on the Labour Benches do not want to see Mr Hague in Downing Street, they might think that this amendment is the best prospect that they have left. It is a lifeboat. We are happy to offer it to them and we will welcome aboard any of those who want to join us.

I know that the Minister will make arguments about targeting. I remember the Minister herself, in some extremely able speeches in the single parent debates at the beginning of this Parliament, arguing that the hardship of being on benefit was in large part a measure of how long one had received it. I have weighed up those arguments and find them extremely powerful, especially in relation to pensioners. My noble friend Lord Goodhart touched on some of the points which are relevant, such as having to go to a nearer place for shopping and having to get a taxi because one cannot drive.

But there are things such as the overcoat wearing out. As one gets older one feels the cold more. These big capital sums are one of the great hardships of any life on benefit. For that reason, the figures which the Minister will undoubtedly present will be telling very much less than the full story. This is a much better targeted amendment than the Minister will suggest.

The Minister will of course sing the praises of the minimum income guarantee. I understand the good intentions behind MIG. I am not going to shoot the Minister; she is doing her best. She is making great efforts. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, would like to share the joke with me. I might enjoy it.

Baroness Castle of Blackburn

I could not resist it. You said that you were not going to shoot her because she was doing her best. I merely added, "to shoot herself".

Earl Russell

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, has a lot more confidence in the Minister's aim than I have. The Minister is doing her best to find the people who are entitled to MIG to take it up. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Castle has explained to this House many times, there are a great many people for whom the obstacle to taking up MIG is a simple, plain matter of pride. They do not take charity. They believe that they have earned it.

Since there are qualities in our population which I do not want to discourage, I believe that the people MIG is least likely to reach are those who need it most. For that reason I do not think that MIG can ever do what is wanted. I believe that my noble friend's amendment is the only thing that can. I hope that the House will view it with favour.

7.45 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, despite the bait laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and to some degree by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I do not intend at Third Reading of this Bill to go into a wider debate on the Comprehensive Spending Review, as opposed to the details of this amendment at Third Reading of this Bill.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow the payment of an age addition to the basic state pension to people of 75 years of age and to allow for a higher age addition at the age of 80. As we have had a version of this at every stage of the Bill, noble Lords will not be surprised at my arguments any more than I am entirely surprised by the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, this evening. I accept with the noble Lord that on average pensioner incomes tend to decline with age. But the differences within age cohorts are, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has acknowledged tonight, infinitely greater than the differences between them.

To put these differences into context, we can look at the median cash incomes that couples are receiving. For couples under 75 years of age, the poorest one-fifth are receiving on average £133 per week; the top one-fifth are receiving £457. For the over 80s, the poorest one-fifth receive £113 and the top one-fifth receive £348. That means that in each age group the richest one-fifth receive more than three times as much as the poorest one-fifth. The difference between age groups is much smaller and only about 12 per cent less. To put it in cash terms, the average income range within each age cohort spans about £250. The average income between age cohorts is approximately £25. In other words, the range within each age cohort is about 10 times greater than the differences between age cohorts.

In other words, that would mean that the Liberal Democrat amendment would give an additional £10 to those on £350 a week, providing they are over 80 years of age, but give nothing to those receiving £133 per week—about one third of the other group—because they are under 75 years of age. That is the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. There will be an extra £10 for those receiving £350 a week because they are over 80 years of age, and nothing at all for those receiving £133 per week because they are under the age of 75. What sort of justice is that? There is none.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that he had been persuaded in an earlier debate by the analogy with lone parents that people, through length of time on benefit, become poorer. That is true if pensioners were in the same position as lone parents. But lone parents are on benefit because they have no other income and therefore, over time, their capital goods wear out. Their income is the same irrespective of whether they have been receiving benefit for five years, 10 years or 20 years.

The point about pensioners is that they do not all have the same income as lone parents. The point being made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, substantiates the point made by government. It is precisely because of the inequality of income, unlike the equality for lone parents, that we need to target help in the way that we propose. I give way to the noble Earl.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. When we speak of lone parents, it is often assumed—it is most certainly assumed by the Minister—that they may have to return to work at some future date. We do not normally make that assumption about the pensioner in his 80s unless he is a Member of this House.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, that is not a comment relevant to the point I was making, which was that lone parents are on benefit because they have no alternative income and experience poverty. There is persistent poverty and they are persistently on benefit. That is why we try to get them into work. Pensioners do not have a common income. If they did, my noble friend's amendment that she pressed at Committee and Report stages would have far greater resonance if pensioners all shared the same income in the same way as lone parents. It is because they do not and because the poorest one-fifth have only one-third or so of the income of the richest one-fifth, that to treat them all in the same way as my noble friend would, or treat them differently according to age, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would do, fails basically, simply and decently to address the poverty that is targeted on the poorest one-fifth, and to some extent the poorest two-fifths, of pensioners. That is why the Government are convinced that the best way to tackle pensioner poverty, and therefore ensure that those who need help get it whereas those who do not need help do not get it, is to produce, with their support, the minimum income guarantee irrespective of age.

We are aware of the needs of pensioners who have failed to qualify for the minimum income guarantee. That is why we have raised the capital limits from next April from £3,000 to £6,000 and £8,000 to £12,000, to help those with smaller amounts of savings. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, perceptively noticed in the Chancellor's Statement, in the long term we shat be publishing in the autumn proposed plans for a new pensioner credit with a view to further announcements on a Budget timetable. That pensioner credit will be designed to ensure that pensioners who have worked hard all their lives are not penalised if they have a modest occupational pension or savings.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that that was a throw-away line. On the contrary, that needs to be linked with what we are doing with MIG for those at or below the poverty line. We then need to look at our proposals for raising the capital limits for those just above the midline; the Chancellor's proposals for the autumn timetable for publishing plans for new pensioner credit and what we have been doing in this Bill and last summer's Bill, which has introduced a state second pension and a stakeholder pension. The noble Lord would surely accept that with the pensioner credit we are putting the last of the building blocks into a comprehensive and consistent pensioner programme which I hope will ensure that future generations of pensioners will not suffer the poverty they have inherited over the past 20 years. I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that unless the Government fiddle the figures in the same way they did on the working families' tax credit, all the recognised standards of accountancy suggest that that should be treated as public expenditure, and the public expenditure review does not include it?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I have no knowledge of the way in which the Chancellor will account for that expenditure; whether that will be through the Inland Revenue and tax credits systems or through the DSS. However, I have somewhat greater knowledge of the working families' tax credit. The noble Lord, together with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, took part in those debates. Unlike family credit which was paid to the parent at home and was therefore a benefit, the working families' tax credit is paid through the wage packet and is therefore a tax credit. That point was well aired. I know that the noble Lord disagrees. I do not think that I shall persuade him, any more than he will persuade me. However, that was perfectly proper and acceptable by all accounting standards of which I am aware. As far as I know, there has been no criticism to that effect, except from the Conservative Party.

I return to the amendment, rather than a wider debate on the CSR—

Lord Higgins

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness again. If it is not the case, as she suggests, that it is accepted by outside accountancy bodies, will she take steps to correct the statement?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, it is a question of what weight one puts on particular views. I know that the Conservative Party wishes to see that included in the expenditure on the Department of Social Security. The whole philosophic push of the working families' tax credit is that this was no longer a benefit paid to a parent at home but an encouragement to ensure that work pays for those who, for whatever reason—for example, low levels of skill or low regional wages in their local economy—would otherwise find it difficult to manage and to make work pay if they re-entered the labour market. In that sense it was a tax credit to encourage an attractive wage and therefore make it worth while to work.

We have had this debate. I do not think that it is appropriate to reargue it tonight. At the time, the noble Lord persisted in his points because he and his party are opposed to WFTC in the same way that they are opposed to the New Deal. As far as I can see, the only expenditure the Tory Party opposite is happy to support is that which ensures that people stay at home rather than go out to work and find it worth while to work either through the support of the New Deal or the WFTC. We have seen the Shadow Chancellor recently do a U-turn on the minimum wage. I think that it will not be long before we see the Shadow Chancellor do a U-turn on the New Deal and the WFTC as he recognises that putting this together has ensured that we now have some of the lowest unemployment figures ever. Whereas we inherited youth unemployment of over half a million, it is now down to 50,000. Instead of sniping away at accounting conventions, it would have been gracious rather than churlish if the Benches opposite had joined in congratulating the Government on their performance in terms of their economic record so far.

I return to the amendment. I am happy to stay on the wider territory of government expenditure if noble Lords wish. However, I suspect that most noble Lords would like me to proceed. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that this proposal was an alternative to the indignity of the charity of the minimum income guarantee. Again, either he has not read or listened to the previous debates or he has not addressed the facts. An age-related addition of the sort proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would lift 50,000 pensioners aged between 75 and 79 off MIG; 200,000 would remain on it. For those at £10, the proposal also in the amendment, it would lift 100,000 pensioners over 80 off MIG; 400,000 would remain on it.

If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, persists in what he says, he must either say that MIG will no longer be necessary—in which case three-quarters of the pensioners who would benefit from the age-related addition as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would be poorer because they would lose their entitlement to MIG—or accept the Government's position; that is, if we were to do that, they would still need to apply for MIG. Therefore, they would still need to apply for an income-related benefit in addition to an age-related benefit. We cannot have it both ways.

The same is true of the amendment tabled by my noble friend on the earnings-related link. Because the age addition is so poorly targeted, in the same way as the earnings link, we have to have a minimum income guarantee on top. That means that the vast majority of people would still have to apply for an income-related top-up whether that is an age-related or earnings-related addition. Those facts are inescapable unless we are otherwise to consign three-quarters of pensioners currently eligible for MIG to a life of poverty lower than currently exists. I believe that the noble Earl wishes to intervene.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I was describing how pensioners think of MIG. That is fact, and I have listened to it more times than I enjoy, even when it was aimed against my own party. I think that it is common ground between all parties that it will be a while before we can do without such a thing. We think—I should like to think that the noble Baroness does too—that there should be something else of right on offer.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I am reminded that it is Third Reading. Although I am being tempted by noble Lords opposite, I shall stop. The idea put forward by the Liberal Democrats means that the extra help that we are giving to low and moderate earners through the state second pension will not be available. The noble Lord's amendment will not work. Although it pays some money to older pensioners who need it, it gives a lot of money to older pensioners who do not need it and it does not help poorer pensioners, who will get nothing.

I repeat that any pensioners who come through age-related cohorts, any more than earnings-related additions, would still need MIG on top if their poverty is to be addressed. That would mean that some money would go to those who do not need it, whereas others would not get enough. On the ground that the age-related rebates are no more adequately targeted on the needs of poorer pensioners than are my noble friend's earnings-related amendments, I ask your Lordships to reject the amendment.

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, to some extent I believe that the Minister and I, in the course of this debate, have been ships that pass in the night. Our arguments may not have impacted on each other. This amendment is not just about helping those with the lowest incomes. Indeed, I understand that those who receive an amount of MIG which is larger than the amount of the proposed age addition will receive nothing. This amendment is about helping older pensioners who have income just above MIG or, in the 120,000 cases of those who will be taken off MIG by the proposed age increases, it is about getting them out of the need to fill in the forms and to go through what is a serious issue for older people of having to make those applications. Furthermore, the great majority of those 120,000 will receive additional benefits from the age additions we propose.

So long as we have a contributory system, pensioners expect, and have a right to expect, that they will be treated fairly. That means that they should have been promised at least a small part of the vast sums which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dished out yesterday. The Minister said nothing about the derisory benefits provided for pensioners in the spending review and, indeed, there was little she could have said.

If we divide on this amendment, we do not expect to win; we shall not receive support from the Conservatives. However, it seems to us that this is a simple but vital matter of justice for pensioners and, whatever the outcome, I shall take the opinion of the House.

8 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 2
Alderdice, L. Goodhart, L. [Teller]
Barker, B. Greaves, L.
Carlileof Berriew, L. McNally, L.
Clement-Jones, L. Mar and Kellie, E.
Craigavon, V. Miller of Hendon, B.
Falkland, V. Palmer, L.
Geraint, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Phillips of Sudbury, L. Tope, L.
Roper, L. Tordoff, L.
Russell, E. [Teller] Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L. Watson of Richmond, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L. Willoughby de Broke, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Acton, L. Hoyle, L.
Ahmed, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Alli, L. Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Amos, B. Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Andrews, B. Jay of Paddington, B. (Lard Privy Seal)
Archer of Sand well, L. Judd, L.
Bach, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L. King of West Bromwich, L.
Berkeley, L. Kirkhill, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Layard, L.
Billingham, B. Lea of Crondall, L.
Blackstone, B. Lipsey, L.
Blease, L. Lockwood, B.
Borne, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Brennan, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Brett, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Burlison, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Carter, L. [Teller] Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Chandos, V. Mallalieu, B
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Massey of Darwen, B.
Cohen of Pimlico, B. Mitchell, L.
Crawley, B. Molloy, L.
Davies of Coity, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. Nicol, B.
Desai, L. Patel of Blackburn, L.
Dixon, L. Peston, L.
Donoughue, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Puttnam, L.
Elder, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Evans of Parkside, L. Rea, L.
Evans of Watford, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. Renwick of Clifton, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Rogers of Riverside, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L. St. John of Bletso, L.
Gale, B. Sawyer, L.
Gavron, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Shepherd, L.
Gilbert, L. Simon, V.
Goldsmith, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Thornton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Tomlinson, L.
Grenfell, L. Turnberg, L.
Hardy of Wath, L. Walker of Doncaster, L.
Harris of Haringey, L. Warner, L.
Harrison, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Haskel, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Hayman, B. Whitaker, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Whitty, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Wilkins, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B. Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

8.9 p.m.

Baroness Castle of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 3:

Before Clause 36, insert the following new clause—