Transport Bill — After clause 61 — 15 Nov 2000
Oliver Letwin MP, West Dorset voted in the minority (No).
Lords amendment disagreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29 disagreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 31, to insert the following new clause-- Pension entitlement of present and former employees of NATS --
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
First, let me reassure the House that the Government regard the matter of pensions protection for air traffic control staff as one of great importance. Pensions affect us all, and I can well understand why it is a matter of such importance to NATS employees. I must therefore make it clear that we would not act in any way that would put them under threat, and we are not doing so. We have considered in some detail the adequacy of protections for NATS employees. We believe that the necessary protections are in place without the need for this amendment. I shall attempt to explain, as briefly as possible, what the protections are.
A straight "yes" or "no" answer is not appropriate.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 9 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1708.]
the Trustees are concerned about the risk of challenge by disaffected members--
the Trustees are reluctantly making preparations to take the matter to court--
proceedings might cost one million pounds, such costs (which you have confirmed the government will not contribute towards) being paid out of the Scheme assets. The Trustees regret that any court action is likely to considerably delay the timetable for PPP.
Whilst we continue to prepare for a possible court application, we urge the government to reconsider its position on legislation even at this late stage. We are advised that if legislation were introduced in a form satisfactory to the Trustees, there would be no need to take pre-emptive court action.
they are entitled to do it.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 26 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 554.]
We are advised that if legislation were introduced in a form satisfactory to the Trustees, there will be no need to take pre-emptive court action.
Question put , That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:--
The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 203.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||138 (+2 tell)||0||87.5%|
|Lab||338 (+2 tell)||17||0||86.4%|
|Mr Harry Barnes||North East Derbyshire||Lab||no|
|David Chaytor||Bury North||Lab||no|
|Jeremy Corbyn||Islington North||Lab||no|
|Mr Tam Dalyell||Linlithgow||Lab||no|
|Ian Davidson||Glasgow Pollok||Lab (minister)||no|
|Gwyneth Dunwoody||Crewe and Nantwich||Lab||no|
|Dr Norman Godman||Greenock and Inverclyde||Lab||no|
|Kelvin Hopkins||Luton North||Lab||no|
|Mrs Alice Mahon||Halifax||Lab||no|
|John Martin McDonnell||Hayes and Harlington||Lab (minister)||no|
|Mr Bill Michie||Sheffield, Heeley||Lab||no|
|Dennis Skinner||Bolsover||Lab (minister)||no|
|Mr Llew Smith||Blaenau Gwent||Lab||no|
|Gavin Strang||Edinburgh East and Musselburgh||Lab||no|
|Robert Wareing||Liverpool, West Derby||Lab||no|
|Mike Wood||Batley and Spen||Lab||no|