Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, the noble Lord has left me two minutes before the estimated rising time of the House in which to reply to his suggestion that this Bill should not pass. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that this Bill had a very adequate Second Reading. It was considered by a Select Committee which was unanimous in its recommendations that, other than the undertakings which were freely given, the Bill should go forward in this House unamended. We have had a long debate this evening and a number of amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, all of which, after considerable debate, he decided to withdraw. If he did not think the Bill was adequate in those areas, he had an opportunity to press those amendments, but he chose not to do so.

I believe that the Bill should be passed. We understand that Merseyside is beginning its renaissance. The regeneration of Merseyside is now happening. If that development is going to take place, it needs a transport system that will allow it to continue. The Bill views the Mersey tunnels not merely as a means of access between the two parts of the city, but as an integral part of the Merseyside transport system. It seeks to try to achieve some modal shift, which will not happen if we do not have the money to invest in public transport in Merseyside. I do not know when my noble friend Lord Harrison used the tunnels, but when travelling in peak hours, he would find that they operate at approximately 95 per cent of capacity. The growth of traffic predicted over the next few years will mean that they become fully congested.

We have had an unusually long Third Reading debate. I hope that the House will accept the recommendations of its Select Committee by supporting the Bill and the principles behind it.

On Question, Whether the Bill do now pass?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 65.


Division No. 2


CONTENTS

Acton, L.
Addington, L.
Andrews, B.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Chandos, V.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Drayson, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. [Teller]
Gale, B.
Gilbert, L.
Goodhart, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grantchester, L.
Greengross, B.
Grocott, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Judd, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
McNally, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Morgan, L.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Pendry, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rennard, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Roper, L.
Rosser, L.
Sawyer, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Simon, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tordoff, L.
Triesman, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Biffen, L.
Blatch, B.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chan, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cuckney, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dundee, E.
Elton, L.
Fookes, B.
Gray of Contin, L.
Greenway, L.
Harrison, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L. [Teller]
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Home, E.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Jones, L.
Kalms, L.
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Liverpool, E.
Luke, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mancroft, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Monro of Langholm, L.
Montrose, D.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E. [Teller]
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Onslow, E.
Patten, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Renton, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Seccombe, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shrewsbury, E.
Skelmersdale, L.
Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Tebbit, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Ullswater, V.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Wilcox, B.
Willoughby de Broke, L.
Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.


Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.


 
28 Jun 2004 : Column 124
 

On Question, Bill passed.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill

(First Day) Monday, 28 June 2004.

The Committee met at half past three of the clock.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, I remind your Lordships of two points of procedure. Noble Lords will speak standing, and the House has agreed that there should be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Title postponed.

Clause 1 [Pension and compensation schemes: armed and reserve forces]:

Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 1:

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 9, 10, 35 and 36. The amendments are designed to provide for greater accountability and better parliamentary scrutiny. We are supported in these by the Royal British Legion, the Forces Pension Society and the War Widows Association. I am very grateful to all those organisations for the great help they have given me and my noble friend with our amendments.

At the outset of consideration in Grand Committee, and in the context of the amendments, I suggest that we must bear in mind the overriding principle that the Armed Forces deserve to be treated differently from the rest of the country. They have total reliance on their employer, the MoD, for fair treatment, without recourse. They have no representation or professional association to secure equitable treatment.

We wish to ensure that future major changes to the schemes involve proper consultation—our Amendment No. 9—and to ensure that Parliament is able to suggest changes to the schemes. We recommend that changes to the schemes in the future should be by statutory instrument subject to affirmative procedure—Amendments Nos. 10 and 35. That would allow for consultation with interested groups before final secondary legislation was presented to Parliament for approval.
 
28 Jun 2004 : Column GC2
 

We are not in principle trying to hamper the Government's tweaking and adjusting of the scheme to suit different circumstances. We do not want to make the whole process too cumbersome. Her Majesty's Government must be allowed to make day-to-day changes for the benefit of servicemen and pensioners. We are, however, saying that since the measures in the Bill are completely new, the Government should set in stone certain things that can be changed by coming to the House and seeking permission. We do not believe it right to give the Government unfettered powers to produce whatever variation of the scheme they want. The Commons Defence Select Committee was concerned that,

Our amendments would provide Parliament with a proper oversight through the use of affirmative resolutions. I cannot see any reason why the Government should object unless they have something to hide. I beg to move.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page