Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill — 2 Nov 2004 at 14:30

:TITLE3:COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 70, as first printed for the Lords.]

:TITLE3:LORDS AMENDMENT

1 Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert-

"( ) Any scheme established under subsection (2) must provide that there shall be no onus on any claimant under the scheme to prove the fulfilment of any conditions for a claim thereunder and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt shall be given to the claimant."

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason-

1A Because it could allow a claim to succeed even though the conditions for entitlement were probably not fulfilled.

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof-

1C page 1, line 14, at end insert-

"( ) Any scheme established under subsection (2) must provide that there shall be no onus on any claimant under the scheme to prove that his illness or injury (whether physical or mental) or his death, is attributable (wholly or partly) to his service in the armed forces or the reserve forces and the benefit of any reasonable doubt shall be given to the claimant.""

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 140.

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

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 is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Not-Content)Minority (Content)Turnout
Bishop0 13.8%
Con0 4421.3%
Crossbench14 18 (+1 tell)18.8%
Green0 1100.0%
Independent Labour0 1100.0%
Lab121 (+2 tell) 0 (+1 tell)61.4%
LDem0 2536.2%
Other0 17.7%
UUP1 0100.0%
Total:136 9133.2%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

Lords for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible lord who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Party | Vote

NamePartyVote
Viscount Allenby of MegiddoCrossbench (front bench)no
Viscount Bledisloe Crossbenchno
Lord Boston of FavershamCrossbenchno
Lord Bramall Crossbenchno
Lord Bridges Crossbenchno
Lord Chan Crossbenchno
Lord Laming Crossbench (front bench)no
Baroness Masham of IltonCrossbenchno
Lord May of OxfordCrossbenchno
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadCrossbenchno
Baroness Richardson of CalowCrossbenchno
Baroness Strange Crossbenchno
Lord Walton of DetchantCrossbenchno
Lord Weatherill Crossbench (front bench)no
Lord Morris of ManchesterLabtellaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive