Pensions Bill [HL] — Report — 30 Mar 2011 at 17:55
The proposed Amendment 3, moved by the crossbencher Baroness Murphy, was a follow up to the defeat of Amendment 1. It also attempted to limit the speed of equalisation between genders in terms of Pensions age. In contrast to the first Amendment it sought limited reductions in pensions age benchmarks for certain women born within a certain time period. Baroness Murphy argued such changes would benefit the worst affected 33,000 women who would have a hard time adjusting to the 2011 Pension bill's speeding up of the original pensions timetable as laid out in the 1995 Pensions Act.
The Amendment was defeated in the Lords with 203 Lords content (for) and 215 Not-Contents (against).
- compare the changes proposed (accessible from the source link below) with the 2011 Bill's timetable.
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.
|Party||Majority (Not-Content)||Minority (Content)||Turnout|
|Con||140 (+1 tell)||0||63.2%|
|Crossbench||7||40 (+1 tell)||25.5%|
|Lab||0||151 (+1 tell)||62.0%|
|LDem||64 (+1 tell)||0||67.7%|
|Lord Craig of Radley||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Dear||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lady Saltoun of Abernethy||Crossbench||no|
|Lord St John of Bletso||Crossbench (front bench)||no|