Browse content similar to 26/10/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
the House of Commons after the votes which is expected at about half past | :00:00. | :00:00. | |
five, you can follow live coverage of both chambers of on our website. | :00:00. | :00:12. | |
Instead, this is a Dailymotion, it is not as the government knows, it | :00:13. | :00:17. | |
was drafted with the help of the clerks. It calls for a scheme of | :00:18. | :00:20. | |
transitional protection before the House further considers this | :00:21. | :00:27. | |
essentially, my lords the courts would apply to the new payments on | :00:28. | :00:30. | |
the new payments only. Frankly, that could be drafted in a week. And | :00:31. | :00:38. | |
implemented next April exactly as planned. Does it none the less my | :00:39. | :00:42. | |
lords break prevention by trespassing on commoners financial | :00:43. | :00:54. | |
privilege? No. The advice, can be referred by words on the specific | :00:55. | :00:58. | |
issue as that comments financial privilege is exercised in two ways. | :00:59. | :01:05. | |
Begin and then an education bill that the laws can reject our | :01:06. | :01:08. | |
amendment if the Speaker certifies that the comments has financial | :01:09. | :01:15. | |
privilege on this issue. Secondly, the Commons can pass a supply on any | :01:16. | :01:22. | |
bill which we cannot amend. Financial privilege does not extend | :01:23. | :01:26. | |
to statutory instruments. Hear, hear! It simply does not. Nor are | :01:27. | :01:33. | |
statutory instruments covered by the preventions. More so, I would add, | :01:34. | :01:39. | |
because the poor minister ruled them out himself, and he did because | :01:40. | :01:43. | |
these layered elements to tax credits are all affected by the | :01:44. | :01:50. | |
paper and the Kotze. My lords, as has been said if government wanted | :01:51. | :01:55. | |
financial privilege these cuts should be in a money bill. They are | :01:56. | :02:00. | |
not. If they wanted the right to overturn them on the grounds of | :02:01. | :02:04. | |
financial privilege, it could as has been said been introduced in the | :02:05. | :02:09. | |
welfare reform bill on its way here. They did not. So, why now my lords | :02:10. | :02:17. | |
should we be expected to treat this as I as financially privileged when | :02:18. | :02:22. | |
the government itself who could have made it so chose not to do so? Hear, | :02:23. | :02:30. | |
hear! My lords, it is not a constitutional crisis, that is a fig | :02:31. | :02:36. | |
leaf described disguised between members of the government. My lords, | :02:37. | :02:41. | |
we can be supportive of the government and give them what they | :02:42. | :02:47. | |
did not ask for, financial privilege, or we can be supported | :02:48. | :02:54. | |
instead of those three minutes 3 million families facing letters at | :02:55. | :02:57. | |
Christmas telling them on average they would lose up to around 1300 | :02:58. | :03:03. | |
pounds a year. A letter which would take away 10% of their income on | :03:04. | :03:11. | |
average. Those families believed us, they beat us when we all said that | :03:12. | :03:19. | |
work was the best route out of poverty, that work would always | :03:20. | :03:23. | |
pay. They believed the Prime Minister what he promised that tax | :03:24. | :03:30. | |
credits would not be touched. But why do people need tax credits, if | :03:31. | :03:37. | |
the House would allow me two woman in a poor Center, one single working | :03:38. | :03:43. | |
35 hours a week from April earned 13 K a year for herself. Another a dead | :03:44. | :03:49. | |
mother with two and children managing 25 hours a week earns 9000 | :03:50. | :03:57. | |
a year for the three of them. We Saturday, I am completely right on | :03:58. | :04:01. | |
this, we certainly should not be subsidizing employers do pay. But no | :04:02. | :04:07. | |
employer could pay the deserted mother twice as much per hour as a | :04:08. | :04:13. | |
single woman on the next phone in the core centre to make up for her | :04:14. | :04:23. | |
family circumstances. The employer cannot do that. Is not reasonable | :04:24. | :04:30. | |
that we should ask it, that is the job of tax credits which reflect | :04:31. | :04:36. | |
family circumstances which the employer cannot reasonably do. My | :04:37. | :04:40. | |
lords, 43% of single-parent is now 65% of 18% increase partly because | :04:41. | :04:42. | |
of tax credits make work pay for them. That is our contract with her. | :04:43. | :04:52. | |
She has done everything we asked, now we will send her editor at | :04:53. | :04:58. | |
Christmas taking away some ?1300. Her life is hard, she needs | :04:59. | :05:05. | |
financial stability at which to bring opera children. She needs | :05:06. | :05:09. | |
transitional protection to the cuts only affects those will not put | :05:10. | :05:14. | |
their lives around the protection that tax credits currently offer. My | :05:15. | :05:21. | |
lords, national newspapers from the telegraphed to the sun are asking | :05:22. | :05:24. | |
the government to think again before it goes Christmas letters arrive. | :05:25. | :05:33. | |
The ISS says the Treasury are arithmetically impossible. Get those | :05:34. | :05:38. | |
Christmas letters will still arrive. Members of the conservative | :05:39. | :05:46. | |
party have expressed as the cards are too hard and too fast. Yet those | :05:47. | :05:50. | |
letters will still arrive at Christmas. BBB told perhaps among | :05:51. | :06:00. | |
others, we have talked about this and he has gone on record as saying | :06:01. | :06:09. | |
this but the comments has made your position clear the times already | :06:10. | :06:17. | |
that in nasty's general debate on tax credits. My lords, is that | :06:18. | :06:22. | |
right? What happens my lords when the Commons has in my view made its | :06:23. | :06:23. | |
decision on incomplete decisions some of which is only now becoming | :06:24. | :06:28. | |
available? The government insists taking the average ?1300 from 3 | :06:29. | :06:37. | |
million poor families, there is. They can and should offer | :06:38. | :06:39. | |
transitional protection to existing families, called on tax credits, | :06:40. | :06:45. | |
single parents, the self-employed it is tens of thousands a year. We | :06:46. | :06:55. | |
could protect them, those on universal credits my lords. You | :06:56. | :07:01. | |
would not know this from the impact analysis which I have to say, I am | :07:02. | :07:07. | |
confident that the government does not need to make the specific cards | :07:08. | :07:17. | |
which it has authority to do. Why? Two Major points my lords. From the | :07:18. | :07:21. | |
additional revenues by return to government from the rise indeed very | :07:22. | :07:31. | |
welcome national living wage. There is an increase back to the | :07:32. | :07:37. | |
government of the quarters of ?1 million, 753 million, that was about | :07:38. | :07:44. | |
to be back government. The effect of differentials which we cannot | :07:45. | :07:48. | |
populate. By year two, the government is making savings of that | :07:49. | :07:53. | |
alone, maybe 3 billion. Second, I don't think this is mentioned | :07:54. | :07:57. | |
anywhere in the Commons debates, it is crucial those cuts will also take | :07:58. | :08:03. | |
in as families move over to universal credit, as I am sure the | :08:04. | :08:09. | |
Noble Lord would confirm. By the end of 2019, the National Audit Office | :08:10. | :08:19. | |
says an 9%, 9% less than one intends of existing tax credits recipients | :08:20. | :08:26. | |
will still be on tax credits. Will no longer need them, the neck rest | :08:27. | :08:34. | |
of the payments should be on universal credits and the government | :08:35. | :08:36. | |
will get its full savings from them. The statutory instrument cuts for | :08:37. | :08:48. | |
tracks credits are more sustainable, and marketing. Quite my Lords, since | :08:49. | :08:53. | |
track tax credits will have disappeared. My Lords, some of this | :08:54. | :08:58. | |
data that I would have liked to have used more robustly, the government | :08:59. | :09:03. | |
does not collect. Over the next four years, these savings to government, | :09:04. | :09:09. | |
from the rise in wages, he moved to a universal credit, and the natural | :09:10. | :09:13. | |
turn of claimants, I estimate should match and more than match the | :09:14. | :09:17. | |
savings that HMT claims that it needs from these specific tax credit | :09:18. | :09:27. | |
cards. If so, the government gets its welfare savings, and can get its | :09:28. | :09:36. | |
welfare savings. I'm not sure about tax rates of work pension release, | :09:37. | :09:40. | |
but the government can get its welfare savings without these | :09:41. | :09:49. | |
specific cuts. My Lords, I ask you, should the comments not even have | :09:50. | :09:55. | |
discussed this? Have made it different to their position? They | :09:56. | :09:58. | |
have not discussed it so far. We don't know. We don't have that | :09:59. | :10:02. | |
information, and impact analysis did not give that information, some of | :10:03. | :10:07. | |
it is now only coming out. It is reasonable that as the information | :10:08. | :10:12. | |
comes to that challenges, the comments should be given a chance to | :10:13. | :10:16. | |
think again in the light of that. My Lords, this makes a motion is not | :10:17. | :10:21. | |
fatal, it does not challenge financial privilege, and he does not | :10:22. | :10:25. | |
tonight government its welfare savings. It delays in the SSI to ask | :10:26. | :10:32. | |
the government to provide additional protection for existing families who | :10:33. | :10:36. | |
are doing everything that we ask of them. Who trusted the prime | :10:37. | :10:42. | |
minister's word, that tax credits would not be cut, and a trusted | :10:43. | :10:49. | |
Parliament, us. My Lords, when we said that we would make work pay, my | :10:50. | :10:56. | |
Lords what happens next? If the house were to support my motion, the | :10:57. | :11:00. | |
government could come back quite quickly, I estimate it a week, with | :11:01. | :11:06. | |
a new aside in which these rates and can't apply only to new claimants. | :11:07. | :11:12. | |
Is all. It is very simple. If the House agreed to that new SI, it | :11:13. | :11:17. | |
would then go to the comments, who would accept it, or rejected. | :11:18. | :11:22. | |
Their's would quite properly, absolutely beady final word, as our | :11:23. | :11:29. | |
conventions demand. They would have kept to the premise, and that is | :11:30. | :11:34. | |
right. We would have kept safe, with struggling families, and perhaps | :11:35. | :11:40. | |
ever store some taken from it. My Lords, let the final words rest with | :11:41. | :11:47. | |
what families themselves say, as they face those Christmas letters. I | :11:48. | :11:55. | |
quote "I already work 40 hours a work under minimum wage of doing two | :11:56. | :11:59. | |
jobs around my children. I cannot believe that this is actually going | :12:00. | :12:06. | |
to happen. I am terrified. We are not scroungers, we worked | :12:07. | :12:09. | |
unbelievably hard just to keep going, and once again we are being | :12:10. | :12:14. | |
punished for trying to earn a living wage. " She will ease -- lose a over | :12:15. | :12:21. | |
?1000 a year after she gets a Christmas letter. "My husband works | :12:22. | :12:29. | |
for full-time as a firefighter. We have four children. We won't | :12:30. | :12:38. | |
survive." She stands to lose in her Christmas letter ?2940. Rachel, from | :12:39. | :12:47. | |
Milton Keynes. "They probably means, that his parents will skip a few | :12:48. | :12:52. | |
extra meals to ensure that our children eat. " She is standing to | :12:53. | :13:00. | |
lose in her Christmas letter ?2005. Finally, my Lords. Tony from my city | :13:01. | :13:13. | |
of Lords. " My children are exhausted. Their Christmas letter | :13:14. | :13:23. | |
--" they will lose ?60 a week and her Christmas letter. ?2120. A | :13:24. | :13:32. | |
family where she is in full-time work, and she is worth caring for | :13:33. | :13:39. | |
disabled children. ?3000. We do not need to do this to them. Last week, | :13:40. | :13:44. | |
the prime minister said let us make work pay. He is right, and this | :13:45. | :13:50. | |
motion is in that spirit. It will protect deserted mothers and loan | :13:51. | :13:55. | |
the parents who want their children to grow up in a household where | :13:56. | :13:59. | |
their parent works. Parents who live out their lives instruments to | :14:00. | :14:03. | |
others, and struggle to maintain a foothold in the Labour market. | :14:04. | :14:11. | |
Families, who exhausted themselves caring for disabled children, were | :14:12. | :14:14. | |
the self-employed who we hope will help us build a more productive and | :14:15. | :14:21. | |
entrepreneurial economy. My Lords, if we don't pass my motion today, or | :14:22. | :14:30. | |
even if we pass the Bishop's motion, this as I becomes law tonight. Law | :14:31. | :14:37. | |
tonight. Whatever the comments decides on Thursday, the Chandler | :14:38. | :14:42. | |
then need to do nothing at all, because the aside -- as I will make | :14:43. | :14:50. | |
it right by law. Is that what we want? Or do we want to give the | :14:51. | :14:55. | |
comments a pause to think about this additional information, additional | :14:56. | :15:02. | |
information that is coming through from the think tanks, and additional | :15:03. | :15:05. | |
thoughts that members of the conservative party may no half in | :15:06. | :15:09. | |
the light of the correspondence with their constituents. He my Lords, I | :15:10. | :15:15. | |
hope I don't some pious, but I think that this is about honouring our | :15:16. | :15:20. | |
alert, the prime minister's word that work must always pay. It is | :15:21. | :15:26. | |
about, surely, respect for those who strive to do everything that we ask | :15:27. | :15:34. | |
of them. For those who now find themselves punished for doing what | :15:35. | :15:41. | |
is right. It is about trust between Parliament and the people that we | :15:42. | :15:49. | |
serve. I beg to move. -- I'd like to echo the last words of the noble | :15:50. | :15:51. | |
lady. My Lords, I deeply regret that the | :15:52. | :16:04. | |
government's regulations before us today lead me and others in this | :16:05. | :16:09. | |
house for whom politics is not a vocation, to be part of a debate | :16:10. | :16:13. | |
with constitutional and political implications. I'm aware of her | :16:14. | :16:23. | |
Majesty's government manifesto commitment to eradicate deficits, | :16:24. | :16:28. | |
including through welfare payments. Also of the studies of lack of | :16:29. | :16:33. | |
detail about how this was to be achieved. It is impossible to claim | :16:34. | :16:39. | |
now that we should somehow have anticipated these proposals when | :16:40. | :16:46. | |
they were not detailed. Indeed, we were assured that sharing the burden | :16:47. | :16:50. | |
was appropriate, and network should pay. My primary concern with these | :16:51. | :16:59. | |
regulations is with a short-term impact on some of our poorest | :17:00. | :17:04. | |
families. We have been encouraged to consider these measures as part of a | :17:05. | :17:09. | |
package of measures, that includes increases in the minimum wage toward | :17:10. | :17:15. | |
the national living wage, childcare provision, and raising the income | :17:16. | :17:20. | |
tax threshold. We are told that this is a five-year programme on a | :17:21. | :17:27. | |
journey toward a higher pay lower tax lower welfare economy. This | :17:28. | :17:33. | |
argument will be stamped consolation to the three million and more low | :17:34. | :17:40. | |
income families who will see a very large reduction as we have heard in | :17:41. | :17:47. | |
their tax credits from next April. To be assured that you will be | :17:48. | :17:53. | |
better off in five years' time will not help these families to pay the | :17:54. | :17:58. | |
rent, or gas, or electricity bills. The government is boldly confident | :17:59. | :18:04. | |
that this will be so. This will be so within five years. Their | :18:05. | :18:10. | |
confidence for the future sounds like extraordinary I do missing | :18:11. | :18:16. | |
today for the working families, including 4 million children who | :18:17. | :18:20. | |
will pay such a huge price, and bear such a heavy burden immediately on | :18:21. | :18:28. | |
the introduction of these changes. Of course, I welcome the pledge, to | :18:29. | :18:34. | |
incrementally increase the minimum wage, which will benefit some next | :18:35. | :18:40. | |
year, and may give small amelioration to those on the minimum | :18:41. | :18:50. | |
wage. Only for them, unless, as time passes, there may just be some knock | :18:51. | :18:54. | |
on rollover impact on wage levels for those on a very modest wage, | :18:55. | :19:01. | |
just above the present minimum. The likeliest knock on effects in the | :19:02. | :19:09. | |
short term will be indebtedness, Terrance, mental, health, and | :19:10. | :19:14. | |
children's education and future life chances. In addition to a sudden | :19:15. | :19:21. | |
drop of income of up to 10%, many will face a marginal 80% hit on the | :19:22. | :19:32. | |
income, Weatherby increase or rise wages, and even higher in some | :19:33. | :19:35. | |
instances when other benefits are factored in. If that were a marginal | :19:36. | :19:40. | |
tax rate, there will be howls of protest. What reward is that? For | :19:41. | :19:50. | |
those willing to work hard? It is also grossly insensitive to the many | :19:51. | :19:56. | |
Puritans who already work full-time, or struggle to work their work with | :19:57. | :20:01. | |
childcare and other responsibilities in order to provide for their | :20:02. | :20:09. | |
family's financial and other needs. While the increase in the minimum | :20:10. | :20:14. | |
wage, the rise in the income tax threshold is being phased in over | :20:15. | :20:20. | |
the years, the changes to the income threshold from tax credit, any | :20:21. | :20:24. | |
increase in the taper rate take immediate effect. Of course, | :20:25. | :20:31. | |
employers should pay decently, and not rely on the rest of us to | :20:32. | :20:37. | |
subsidize their low rates of pay. While they may expect to be rewarded | :20:38. | :20:42. | |
for better practice, with changes in company taxation, those receiving | :20:43. | :20:47. | |
tax credits will receive the impact immediately. A carrier for some, a | :20:48. | :20:59. | |
stick for others. -- carrot. I say it that these proposals are morally | :21:00. | :21:04. | |
indefensible. It is clear to me, and I believe to very many others, that | :21:05. | :21:12. | |
these proposals blatantly threatened damage to the lives of millions of | :21:13. | :21:17. | |
our fellow citizens. This must not be the way to achieve the | :21:18. | :21:23. | |
government's goals, at a cost to those who, if we believe to the | :21:24. | :21:27. | |
rhetoric, the government intends to encourage and support. To many in my | :21:28. | :21:36. | |
diocese, and well beyond, this seems punishing rather than encouragement. | :21:37. | :21:43. | |
I hope that we can here this afternoon assurance, a commitment, | :21:44. | :21:49. | |
to consult and to listen, and a willingness to revisit these | :21:50. | :21:55. | |
proposals in the coming weeks. A commitment. | :21:56. | :22:03. | |
He's spoken movingly and greatly about the end injustice and | :22:04. | :22:08. | |
suffering that has been called by the passing of this unamended. | :22:09. | :22:12. | |
Doesn't it feel in those circumstances that it is not just | :22:13. | :22:16. | |
our duty to talk about it or record our objection, but to do something | :22:17. | :22:23. | |
to stop the? I am grateful for the intervention. I believe that our | :22:24. | :22:28. | |
first duty is to speak, and in a variety of ways to act. That would | :22:29. | :22:34. | |
involve, as many of you know, very many who participate in charitable | :22:35. | :22:38. | |
organizations and support on the ground I'm a end I commit that those | :22:39. | :22:46. | |
in my diocese will do our very best. I had my very self will be listening | :22:47. | :22:50. | |
to this debate before I determine how I shall vote on the amendment | :22:51. | :23:00. | |
before us. I return, if I may, to those commitments I asked that the | :23:01. | :23:03. | |
government might make over the coming weeks. I asked the North | :23:04. | :23:08. | |
noble Baroness if she can make those commitments on behalf of the | :23:09. | :23:12. | |
government's during the last few days, I have wrestled long and hard | :23:13. | :23:19. | |
with the question of how to vote, and guess how to vote, and how to | :23:20. | :23:25. | |
speak today. Part of the dilemma has been anger, and the party political | :23:26. | :23:33. | |
point scoring, any rating of the issues around constitutional | :23:34. | :23:39. | |
matters. That has obscured what ought to be a measured and careful | :23:40. | :23:45. | |
consideration as to the best interests of the poorest workers in | :23:46. | :23:53. | |
our society. I am appalled by the government's proposals. I | :23:54. | :23:57. | |
emphatically did not table of this amendment, because of party | :23:58. | :24:03. | |
political pressures. I am aware of the conflicting views of | :24:04. | :24:09. | |
constitutional matters. This amendment offers an alternative, and | :24:10. | :24:13. | |
in the opportunity to do, no matter what happens to the other three | :24:14. | :24:18. | |
amendments, for this house to register its disapproval of these | :24:19. | :24:25. | |
proposals. Also its expectations that are reservations will be | :24:26. | :24:30. | |
addressed. Your Lordship's house in my judgement must make that clear. I | :24:31. | :24:36. | |
will be listening carefully to further contributions this | :24:37. | :24:43. | |
afternoon. I intend to vote with the interests of those who have most to | :24:44. | :24:51. | |
lose to this bill. -- in my heart. Should other amendments fail, fall, | :24:52. | :24:59. | |
then I present mine as a respectful, but for my message to the government | :25:00. | :25:04. | |
that disability is not acceptable in its current form, these regulations | :25:05. | :25:09. | |
are not acceptable in their current form. Significant work is required | :25:10. | :25:15. | |
for us to be satisfied that the needs of those working for low | :25:16. | :25:18. | |
incomes will be met. My Lords, high. -- hello. My Lords, | :25:19. | :25:43. | |
we have just heard a very moving -- moving the speech is in relation to | :25:44. | :25:48. | |
this matter. I have no doubt that as the gator of the House has said, the | :25:49. | :25:52. | |
Chancellor will consider these matters very carefully. I know that | :25:53. | :25:58. | |
it is extremely difficult to analyse the precise effects of income tax or | :25:59. | :26:07. | |
tax credit changes to an individual circumstance. Your lordships will | :26:08. | :26:11. | |
remember that when Mr Gordon Brown, as the Chancellor, sought to take | :26:12. | :26:21. | |
out of the tax system be 10% tax a band that had previously existed, | :26:22. | :26:26. | |
the difficulty of finding out precisely who were affected and how | :26:27. | :26:30. | |
they were affected turns out to be extremely difficult. I believe that | :26:31. | :26:37. | |
the difficulties in this connection also may well be that the | :26:38. | :26:40. | |
information that arises in the course of the attempt to deliver | :26:41. | :26:46. | |
this will show in detail what is required if changes should be made. | :26:47. | :26:54. | |
My Lords, I am intending to do only with the constitutional question as | :26:55. | :27:01. | |
I see it. These draft regulations are made under the tax credit act, | :27:02. | :27:06. | |
which sets up mechanisms for the payment of tax credits of two types. | :27:07. | :27:11. | |
Children's tax credits, and work tax credits. The arrangements were under | :27:12. | :27:17. | |
the control of the land read Brendan, who are entitled under | :27:18. | :27:22. | |
schedule two to deduct the tax credits from the income of the board | :27:23. | :27:28. | |
to taxation. It is perfectly clear that these tax credits are a charge | :27:29. | :27:38. | |
on the taxes raised. The details of the credits, and the machinery | :27:39. | :27:41. | |
needed for the registration that were sent out in the sections of the | :27:42. | :27:51. | |
act. Section 66 of the act says that "no registration of this subsection | :27:52. | :27:58. | |
replies -- no amendment will be made whether another provision has been | :27:59. | :28:02. | |
laid before and prevent -- approved by a resolution of each house of | :28:03. | :28:07. | |
parliament. " Some of parliament." Some sections won't apply to | :28:08. | :28:10. | |
regulations on a monetary amounts which are required to be reviewed | :28:11. | :28:17. | |
under section 41. The section -- system under which this instrument | :28:18. | :28:23. | |
has been made, and accordingly the instrument before the House requires | :28:24. | :28:27. | |
to be approved by each house of Parliament before it be made. The | :28:28. | :28:36. | |
instrument, as we know, was approved by the other place, and to reverse | :28:37. | :28:43. | |
it was defeated in the other place. It has come to us as a matter which | :28:44. | :28:51. | |
has been fully considered so far as the other place has been concerned | :28:52. | :28:58. | |
up to now. In considering this, regard must be had to the financial | :28:59. | :29:04. | |
privileges of the other place. This is not a question of the conventions | :29:05. | :29:08. | |
of this house, it has nothing to do a fat. It has to do with the | :29:09. | :29:12. | |
financial privileges that book blog to the House of Commons. He so far | :29:13. | :29:19. | |
as I understand it, there is nothing to prevent a motion, on the lines | :29:20. | :29:26. | |
that have been proposed here, being considered by this house. The | :29:27. | :29:32. | |
question is whether the consideration can properly interview | :29:33. | :29:37. | |
with the financial interests of the chamber. My Lords, the practice is | :29:38. | :29:48. | |
ruled today by resolutions which remain in the 16 70s. The last one | :29:49. | :29:55. | |
of these, the fullest, is that all aid and supplies, aides to his | :29:56. | :29:59. | |
Majesty and Parliament, are the sole gift of the comments, and all bills | :30:00. | :30:05. | |
for the granting of any such aid of ore supplies ought to be given for | :30:06. | :30:10. | |
the comments, and it is the undoubted and the sole right of the | :30:11. | :30:14. | |
comments to direct, limits, and a in such bills the ends, purposes, | :30:15. | :30:20. | |
limitations, and qualifications of such grants which ought not to be | :30:21. | :30:29. | |
altered by the House of Lords. It is clear, as I said, that these tax | :30:30. | :30:34. | |
credit payments are made out of the supply raised by taxation, and that | :30:35. | :30:38. | |
the other places have decided that the tax credit act should be amended | :30:39. | :30:45. | |
in terms of the approved draft. I am clearly of opinion that a failure of | :30:46. | :30:48. | |
the bar on this House to approve the draft of this instrument would be a | :30:49. | :30:54. | |
breach of the fundamental privileges of the elected chamber. It may be | :30:55. | :31:00. | |
asked, why is the approval of this house required? I believe that it is | :31:01. | :31:05. | |
as a courtesy to the house, just as the house is asked to agree to the | :31:06. | :31:11. | |
passing of money bills to becoming acts of Parliament. The house never | :31:12. | :31:17. | |
seeks to delay them, as the house is obliged to respect the financial | :31:18. | :31:20. | |
privileges of the elected chamber, and how it views with these matters, | :31:21. | :31:25. | |
and it should view this particular matter in the same way. To decline | :31:26. | :31:31. | |
to give up approve this draft, or to decline to review it until certain | :31:32. | :31:36. | |
conditions are met, is a refusal to accept as a decision of the elected | :31:37. | :31:42. | |
house on a matter of financial privilege is the final authority for | :31:43. | :31:46. | |
it. It has to be noted that this is a matter of the privilege of elected | :31:47. | :32:00. | |
chamber, not of the government. What the motion that had been put forward | :32:01. | :32:23. | |
does, is to... LAUGHTER a refusal to accept the decision of the elected | :32:24. | :32:28. | |
house on a matter of a financial a privilege, and that is what this | :32:29. | :32:33. | |
amounts to, and has to be noted that this is the privilege of the elected | :32:34. | :32:39. | |
chamber, not of the government. I want to say that the amendment | :32:40. | :32:47. | |
proposed by the right Reverend, and I will gladly get it right this | :32:48. | :32:54. | |
time, is entirely in accordance with the arrangements in this house, and | :32:55. | :32:59. | |
with the financial privileges of the House of Commons. Therefore, from | :33:00. | :33:02. | |
the point of view from the powers of this house, the motions that have | :33:03. | :33:12. | |
been put forward... I believe that what the leader said in opening that | :33:13. | :33:17. | |
considering the detail of this... The conventions to which he refers, | :33:18. | :33:31. | |
going back to the 17th century, are so uncertain that the conservative | :33:32. | :33:39. | |
party in 1908, defeated the budget, in which he sought to give money to | :33:40. | :33:44. | |
the poor people of this country, and does he not agree that the 1911 act | :33:45. | :33:51. | |
set out a mechanism whereby the Speaker, would certify, that a money | :33:52. | :33:56. | |
bill was a money bill. And that would remove from us, our powers of | :33:57. | :34:03. | |
consideration. To -- is he not going back to an argument that failed over | :34:04. | :34:10. | |
a hundred years ago? Not at all. I am saying what is the present | :34:11. | :34:18. | |
practice, according to... In relation to matters of financial | :34:19. | :34:22. | |
privileged. It is not a matter of the conventions of this house, it is | :34:23. | :34:26. | |
a matter of the rights of the other place in this matter, and in my | :34:27. | :34:38. | |
clear submission, this is, in fact, challenging the final authority of | :34:39. | :34:46. | |
the elected house, in a matter of financial privilege. And it is true | :34:47. | :34:49. | |
that the Liberal Democrats, at least I suck pose it was the Liberal | :34:50. | :34:59. | |
party, explored this, and found it necessary to take further action to | :35:00. | :35:04. | |
ensure that the practice should be built up in the 17th century, and it | :35:05. | :35:12. | |
applied in the 20th century, and beyond, and of course it put in | :35:13. | :35:19. | |
place mechanisms, to prevent the financial privileges being in any | :35:20. | :35:28. | |
way transgressed again. My Lord, I ask... I'm grateful for him giving | :35:29. | :35:39. | |
way. To ask how he feels that there is an amendment on the Mendel, for | :35:40. | :35:45. | |
passing Wessels -- legislation that will affect hundreds of thousands of | :35:46. | :35:50. | |
people? Is that it the arrangement that is proposed, the tax credit | :35:51. | :35:55. | |
act, which is passed by the labour government in 2002. It is thought to | :35:56. | :35:58. | |
be the right way to do this particular thing, with what the | :35:59. | :36:03. | |
Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, is to follow that. And I would | :36:04. | :36:13. | |
suggest necessary consequences for that, that the Commons or labour | :36:14. | :36:18. | |
government should use a different procedure, in order to secure the | :36:19. | :36:23. | |
financial privilege of the House of Commons. This procedure has been | :36:24. | :36:28. | |
laid down, and the tax credits act, which is the main statutory in this | :36:29. | :36:36. | |
matter, and for the government to do anything other than use that | :36:37. | :36:40. | |
particular course, would seem to be offensive to the way in which this | :36:41. | :36:49. | |
system was set up. And I am saying to your lordships is that in light | :36:50. | :36:54. | |
of what the leader of houses said, about the attitude of the Chancellor | :36:55. | :37:01. | |
of the Exchequer, when more detailed material is available, it is a | :37:02. | :37:04. | |
matter of considerable consolation to me in light of what the right | :37:05. | :37:14. | |
Reverend has said. As I said your lordships, I believe that is the | :37:15. | :37:21. | |
safest way to secure what is asked for by a member of your lordships. | :37:22. | :37:34. | |
First, this represents a lamentable example for not evidence based | :37:35. | :37:36. | |
procedures. The victims of which are going to suffer greatly, and | :37:37. | :37:41. | |
secondly, the arguments used to justify the policy, with reference | :37:42. | :37:45. | |
to other policy changes, and how people could or even should work | :37:46. | :37:51. | |
harder, betrays a lack of understanding of policy, and of | :37:52. | :37:56. | |
people's lives. In his letter to the financial Secretary, the Social | :37:57. | :38:01. | |
Security advisor recommitted to criticise the scant evidence to | :38:02. | :38:04. | |
support the policy changes. It does not encourage the government to make | :38:05. | :38:08. | |
available to Parliament, more detailed information, that clearly | :38:09. | :38:12. | |
explains the changes and potential impacts, to ensure that they can be | :38:13. | :38:16. | |
subject to effective scrutiny, with respect to the Noble Lord, the sack | :38:17. | :38:22. | |
clearly believed that it is possible to provide such an -- information | :38:23. | :38:27. | |
something the advice was ignored. Leading to the Secretary legislation | :38:28. | :38:34. | |
committee to exert -- contained minimal information. My Lord, | :38:35. | :38:39. | |
getting an impact assessment out of the government, could be like | :38:40. | :38:43. | |
pulling teeth. That which finally emerges is a travesty. Much of it | :38:44. | :38:48. | |
simply repeats repetitive repetitively, the rationale behind | :38:49. | :38:53. | |
the policy. It certainly does not provide the information about | :38:54. | :38:57. | |
potential impacts that is thought. There is no information on the | :38:58. | :39:02. | |
impact of such on different groups affected, including the Celtic | :39:03. | :39:05. | |
group, which we have heard, cannot benefit from an increase in the | :39:06. | :39:09. | |
minimum wage. The information about the impact and protecting groups, is | :39:10. | :39:15. | |
simply laughable. And when I asked in a written question of how many | :39:16. | :39:19. | |
receipt of care is allowed, are also... Memorable, return the | :39:20. | :39:27. | |
information could only be provided at disproportionate cost. But I know | :39:28. | :39:30. | |
here in the UK, people are very worried about the likely impact on | :39:31. | :39:33. | |
all carriers receiving working tax credit. In the letter accompanying | :39:34. | :39:39. | |
the impact assessment, the Chancellor excuse the delay on the | :39:40. | :39:43. | |
grounds that the government does not usually published this for statutory | :39:44. | :39:48. | |
instruments at this time, my Lord, I find this statement to be revealing, | :39:49. | :39:52. | |
and it suggest that the government made no attempt to assess the impact | :39:53. | :39:58. | |
before going ahead with such significant cuts. But it sees and I | :39:59. | :40:05. | |
ate as a tick box at the side, to pacify pesky parliamentary | :40:06. | :40:09. | |
committees, surely, given the Prime minister's pledge at the | :40:10. | :40:13. | |
conference, an all-out assault on poverty, the government would want | :40:14. | :40:18. | |
to know the impact on -- poverty. But no, it was left for Resolution | :40:19. | :40:22. | |
Foundation, to point out that there could be an additional 200,000 | :40:23. | :40:27. | |
children falling into poverty next year, rising to 600,000 by 2020, | :40:28. | :40:33. | |
with other summer budget measures have to take into effect. Shortly, | :40:34. | :40:37. | |
the government that is promised to apply the family test, to every | :40:38. | :40:42. | |
measure, would want to know the impact on low income families. A | :40:43. | :40:48. | |
point made by Heidi Alan, and her passionate maiden speech, | :40:49. | :40:51. | |
demolishing her own government's policy, and shortly, a government | :40:52. | :40:56. | |
that goes on calls about making work pay, would want to know the impact | :40:57. | :41:01. | |
on low paid workers. But we had to look at another department for that. | :41:02. | :41:06. | |
The government appears to be contracting out genuine assessment | :41:07. | :41:09. | |
of impact, to the voluntary sector. But of course, that is an assessment | :41:10. | :41:16. | |
after, rather than as part of the policymaking process. That is one | :41:17. | :41:20. | |
reason why it is so important that your lordships House asks the | :41:21. | :41:24. | |
government to think again, in light of the evidence is emerged the | :41:25. | :41:29. | |
damaging impact the cuts will have. My Lord, I'm grateful to all of | :41:30. | :41:33. | |
those organizations, who have exposed by the overall policy | :41:34. | :41:35. | |
package that the government constantly sites, does not amount an | :41:36. | :41:42. | |
adequate policy. Particularly in the case of parents who will be | :41:43. | :41:46. | |
disproportionately affected according to gingerbread. And a key | :41:47. | :41:51. | |
reason why the overall package does not provide adequate protection, is | :41:52. | :41:55. | |
that with the exception of child care, it applies only to a very | :41:56. | :42:00. | |
limited age range, the other policies, the increase in the | :42:01. | :42:07. | |
minimum wage, and in personal tax allowances, less welcome, because it | :42:08. | :42:13. | |
is wasteful. They cannot take account of the presence of | :42:14. | :42:15. | |
children. A point made by my noble friend. All the talk about tax | :42:16. | :42:23. | |
credits, such as those with no pay, ignores the fact that child tax | :42:24. | :42:28. | |
credits were introduced primarily as a child poverty measure. My Lord, | :42:29. | :42:33. | |
wages cannot take account of the presence of children. That was one | :42:34. | :42:38. | |
reason why fell a allowance was introduced. White in increase -- | :42:39. | :42:47. | |
family. Which is currently frozen, provide more effective mitigation, | :42:48. | :42:49. | |
and further increases in tax allowances. Finally, according to | :42:50. | :42:55. | |
the health Secretary, the cuts are intended to set a very important | :42:56. | :43:03. | |
cultural signal, about hard work. The receipt of tax credits is | :43:04. | :43:06. | |
somehow incompatible with independent, self respect, and | :43:07. | :43:11. | |
dignity. It does not appear to understand that reducing the income | :43:12. | :43:19. | |
threshold and increasing the rate, penalizes what he calls hard work, | :43:20. | :43:24. | |
and likewise, the work and pensions secretary suggested that the problem | :43:25. | :43:28. | |
can be solved, if those hardest hit are encouraged to work a few extra | :43:29. | :43:34. | |
hours. But even if extra hours were feasible, and available, it is a | :43:35. | :43:37. | |
game from doing so, will be reduced by the very changes that they are | :43:38. | :43:43. | |
supposed to mitigate every the children's Society points out that | :43:44. | :43:46. | |
every extra ?1 and wages could provide a net increase of only 3p | :43:47. | :43:55. | |
for those receiving benefits, and only 20p for those not. And what | :43:56. | :43:59. | |
about those with family responsibilities? Particularly | :44:00. | :44:05. | |
parents from working extra hours would impact negatively on their | :44:06. | :44:13. | |
family's lights. -- lies. This legislation does not stand up to | :44:14. | :44:16. | |
scrutiny. The policymaking process for which it has emerged this cannot | :44:17. | :44:23. | |
stand up to scrutiny. It is not, my noble Lords, no one will bear the | :44:24. | :44:30. | |
cost of stopping the low-paid workers who e-mailed to say that he | :44:31. | :44:35. | |
is very scared about he will managed -- managed next year. That'll be | :44:36. | :44:38. | |
hundreds of thousands of children pushed into poverty, my lord, I | :44:39. | :44:44. | |
believe we have a duty to defend them and fellow citizens. | :44:45. | :44:51. | |
believe we have a duty to defend them and fellow citizens That | :44:52. | :44:54. | |
suggests that given the very last number of noble Lords who want to | :44:55. | :45:00. | |
their contributions as briefing to the point, so we can get as many in, | :45:01. | :45:08. | |
and we can go round the houses we are doing, it will help, I think, | :45:09. | :45:15. | |
the sense of balance, and our debate, which noble Lords will | :45:16. | :45:20. | |
appreciate, and I hope that they will excuse me, because normally | :45:21. | :45:24. | |
they would take precedence, and they have indicated another member, and | :45:25. | :45:33. | |
she might speak next. I hope you understand why I wish to do so. | :45:34. | :45:47. | |
Might job is to offer my best expertise, to help the government to | :45:48. | :45:55. | |
understand the consequences of legislation for statutory | :45:56. | :45:57. | |
instruments. That is just what I'm going to offer now. Working tax | :45:58. | :46:06. | |
credits to provide an unprecedented and effective point. For disabled | :46:07. | :46:13. | |
people, who faced the greatest barriers, proposes to know working | :46:14. | :46:25. | |
tax credits, and the point to be raised to 48p. | :46:26. | :46:31. | |
For directories and, broad disability, look to their | :46:32. | :46:41. | |
impairments to link increase their working hours, or to offset their | :46:42. | :46:47. | |
losses. Disabled people are more likely to be in low-paid positions. | :46:48. | :46:56. | |
Than non-disabled people. Especially, my lord, people with | :46:57. | :46:59. | |
learning disabilities. My limits, I am not aware of the impact | :47:00. | :47:07. | |
assessment, which evaluated this specific disability, and I fear that | :47:08. | :47:19. | |
this incentivizes disabled people for who a very difficult positions. | :47:20. | :47:25. | |
The benefits into work, and there is little doubt that this will | :47:26. | :47:30. | |
completely impact on the government's other policies, which | :47:31. | :47:36. | |
is to help the disability employment gap, and it does not make sense. And | :47:37. | :47:44. | |
do not forget that this is currently running at over 30%. Therefore, | :47:45. | :47:52. | |
leading and this will inevitably lead to... Health and social care. | :47:53. | :47:58. | |
What is the inevitable resort of unemployment and disabled people. | :47:59. | :48:08. | |
Also, we cannot look at working tax credits. We are promised to join the | :48:09. | :48:14. | |
government, but I'm not aware of any transports that the government's | :48:15. | :48:20. | |
analysis of the cumulative impact of this regulation, on working disabled | :48:21. | :48:29. | |
people to offer... Where is the Department of Health? Many working | :48:30. | :48:36. | |
disabled people are affected by this. And they are also suffering | :48:37. | :48:42. | |
from cuts to their social care and support, the closure of the | :48:43. | :48:45. | |
Independent living fun, and the changes in access to work. It | :48:46. | :48:51. | |
affects, my Lord, the government is making employment less likely for | :48:52. | :48:59. | |
people with these needs than not. And they know that this is not their | :49:00. | :49:12. | |
intention. So, I'm hoping that this little bit of detail and reality and | :49:13. | :49:23. | |
evidence will help us to reflect and maybe the government might change | :49:24. | :49:27. | |
its mind. I do not know. But I'm deeply worried about this number of | :49:28. | :49:33. | |
people that will be affected and hit by this, and that will not deliver | :49:34. | :49:47. | |
the government's own policy. My Lords, I wish to support the | :49:48. | :49:51. | |
amendment to the motion as table by the right Reverend, in the hope that | :49:52. | :49:58. | |
it will indeed give space for further reflection, and | :49:59. | :50:00. | |
reconsideration of the tax credit proposals. As I believe it will do. | :50:01. | :50:07. | |
And has some potential to. Firstly, I went to brick cord my appreciation | :50:08. | :50:13. | |
in recent months foreign members of the government, that implied hard | :50:14. | :50:22. | |
work, and some recognition on the National Minimum Wage. It is this, | :50:23. | :50:25. | |
rather than buttressing from the state, that should provide the | :50:26. | :50:29. | |
income of working people. It follows from this, my lords, rising wages | :50:30. | :50:36. | |
and not least from the government's own proposals, on a national living | :50:37. | :50:40. | |
wage. Will of their own accord reduced the use of tax credits, in | :50:41. | :50:45. | |
due course. Without the introduction of regulations in the foreign | :50:46. | :50:51. | |
office. My Lords, it is my calling and privilege to say that this | :50:52. | :50:54. | |
covers most of south London, and East Surrey, and indeed, I am hoping | :50:55. | :51:00. | |
several of your lordships living with Bennett, it is a large and | :51:01. | :51:03. | |
populous area, encompassing both significant populations of open | :51:04. | :51:09. | |
deprivation, alongside a very considerable wealth. The | :51:10. | :51:14. | |
unsustainable pressures in which the rental market, as well as rapidly | :51:15. | :51:20. | |
rising house prices, already threatening the balance of many | :51:21. | :51:25. | |
communities, and I feel the introductory of these regulations | :51:26. | :51:29. | |
that push a significant number of hard-working people are learning | :51:30. | :51:33. | |
families to breaking point. A reduction in the threshold for | :51:34. | :51:38. | |
credits are withdrawn, to families earning from ?6,430 to 3850, is a | :51:39. | :51:46. | |
very dramatic change, which will adversely affect all but the poorest | :51:47. | :51:50. | |
members of the communities we serve. Families that strive, struggle, | :51:51. | :51:56. | |
aspire, and hope to advance their well-being will be thrown back since | :51:57. | :52:02. | |
you have the sort of margin between income and expenditure, that | :52:03. | :52:06. | |
conclusion them from the bloat that is coming. And the London Borough of | :52:07. | :52:11. | |
Suffolk alone, whose 50th anniversary is being commemorated | :52:12. | :52:16. | |
this past weekend, it is estimated that some 20,000 families are in | :52:17. | :52:22. | |
receipt of tax credits. And it is further estimated that even making | :52:23. | :52:26. | |
allowance for the mitigating factors being introduced by the government, | :52:27. | :52:32. | |
some 4000 will remain worse off by the changes. That is just one London | :52:33. | :52:38. | |
Borough, my Lords. My Lords, this sort of wage Wright doubled mitigate | :52:39. | :52:42. | |
this, and the extra hours worked to catch up will be taken away by other | :52:43. | :52:48. | |
benefits, even if there were other benefits and hours in the day. The | :52:49. | :52:53. | |
allowances, which benefits a far wider group of people, including | :52:54. | :52:57. | |
members of the chamber, will not compensate for the shortfall. By | :52:58. | :53:01. | |
these regulations, we are in fact asking parents to make their | :53:02. | :53:06. | |
children bear a significant adjustment in their economic | :53:07. | :53:11. | |
circumstances. And adjustment, some children will not understand, which | :53:12. | :53:15. | |
in itself, will be an added stress to the families. My Lord, we risk | :53:16. | :53:19. | |
stripping other citizens of their dignity by these provisions, even | :53:20. | :53:24. | |
though the government stated an intention with the home range of | :53:25. | :53:28. | |
economic and fiscal measures, intending to do the opposite. My | :53:29. | :53:32. | |
Lords, we should take this opportunity to cancel her Majesty's | :53:33. | :53:36. | |
government, not to seek to add to the burden, but for those working | :53:37. | :53:41. | |
hard for their families, and to reconsider in detail the impact of | :53:42. | :53:46. | |
these regulations, and the need for more fully worked out transitional | :53:47. | :53:53. | |
arrangements. I therefore support this as tabled by the right | :53:54. | :54:00. | |
Reverend. But I just asked him why, if he believes this will cause such | :54:01. | :54:05. | |
difficulty, and such distress to so many children, in our community and | :54:06. | :54:11. | |
their parents, why he is telling us to back this motion? I was persuaded | :54:12. | :54:20. | |
by listening to the Noble Lord and the other day explaining the | :54:21. | :54:25. | |
constitutional differences that that exists between two chambers. My | :54:26. | :54:38. | |
Lords, there seem to be two plans to this constitutional crisis. And that | :54:39. | :54:42. | |
is what I would like to address. The first is that this House should not | :54:43. | :54:48. | |
back down. And certainly not under the House of Commons. There is no | :54:49. | :54:56. | |
standing down, and the Parliament act are silent on the prime Mary | :54:57. | :55:02. | |
comments, over statutory instruments. This is taking a very | :55:03. | :55:06. | |
big step, but the good thing there, even if it is rather overthrown, and | :55:07. | :55:12. | |
in this house, we do not look at this so much as that the companion | :55:13. | :55:17. | |
to standing orders, and that is where we find that this house has a | :55:18. | :55:21. | |
benefited right, over statutory incomes. If an instrument is not | :55:22. | :55:27. | |
approved by this house, there is nothing to stop the government from | :55:28. | :55:32. | |
being another instrument that those houses, will change immediately. It | :55:33. | :55:37. | |
is time we stopped being bullied over how we can centre statutory | :55:38. | :55:44. | |
instruments. The other plan, the so-called constitutional crisis, | :55:45. | :55:47. | |
involves the privacy of the House of Commons, and actual matters, and | :55:48. | :55:51. | |
here I echo what the noble Baroness has said. The parent act from which | :55:52. | :55:58. | |
this instrument comes was not considered as among those, and if | :55:59. | :56:03. | |
this house would want to debate this at all, which it is, then it is | :56:04. | :56:10. | |
entitled to prove or on approved it, it is not an impression of courtesy, | :56:11. | :56:16. | |
this is what we do. This is what Parliament as agreed, and we will | :56:17. | :56:20. | |
not be complaining all those affected by this measure, and we | :56:21. | :56:25. | |
simply... Turned our backs to the wall, saying that it was none of our | :56:26. | :56:30. | |
business. At the government had wanted to revolt such a situation, | :56:31. | :56:34. | |
then one earth did they wanted to reduce a very short tax credits | :56:35. | :56:43. | |
amendments Bill? Was none of this on measure. At this house turned back, | :56:44. | :56:49. | |
the comments would have voted for natural privilege, and that would be | :56:50. | :56:55. | |
that. But we might have debated how to do -- tweak such a bill, which | :56:56. | :57:01. | |
would help all those conservative members, just for that. And if the | :57:02. | :57:05. | |
bill route had been taken, we might have had much more impact | :57:06. | :57:12. | |
assessment, which would help those low-paid workers effective, when the | :57:13. | :57:17. | |
tax credit changes happen next April, instead of saying that by | :57:18. | :57:22. | |
2020, they may not be... We surely know that after all the thousands of | :57:23. | :57:29. | |
employers in our country will pay the new living wage immediately, and | :57:30. | :57:36. | |
the numbers of the workers want to make up the shortfall. The | :57:37. | :57:38. | |
government will decide that they can make a very controversial change, by | :57:39. | :57:46. | |
and on a metal bowl statutory instrument, and then passing it by | :57:47. | :57:50. | |
telling us that we can have a constitutional crisis. Surely, it is | :57:51. | :57:54. | |
quite unacceptable, and we should stand up to what we believe to be | :57:55. | :58:01. | |
wrong or right. It is the spirit to be | :58:02. | :58:10. | |
my Lords, I suspected that I'm not the only ONE on this side of the | :58:11. | :58:30. | |
House, who feels torn, because the constitutional position which I'm | :58:31. | :58:37. | |
open, has said Adderall... It is very clear. Are matters of the | :58:38. | :58:44. | |
prerogative of the other place, of the elected chamber, and this is | :58:45. | :58:48. | |
undoubtedly a budgetary matter, however it is chosen topic what is | :58:49. | :58:55. | |
the purpose? The purpose is to help reduce the budget deficit, that | :58:56. | :59:01. | |
everybody has agreed to. I apologise for giving way, but he seems to him | :59:02. | :59:04. | |
flying that the tax credits that shoe, which the House said, will be | :59:05. | :59:11. | |
certified privilege, is he aware that the legislation in 2002, | :59:12. | :59:17. | |
itself, was not subject to financial privilege, and it is rather hard to | :59:18. | :59:23. | |
argue this, from that legislation. I hate back to the noble lady, the | :59:24. | :59:26. | |
Constitution is more important than nit-picking. This is a budgetary | :59:27. | :59:40. | |
matter... Does he think that the clock of the parliament was knit | :59:41. | :59:44. | |
picking, when he told my noble friend at the statutory instruments | :59:45. | :59:47. | |
are not covered by financial privilege? Unequivocally from | :59:48. | :59:53. | |
elsewhere. The point is that this was a budgetary matter, and | :59:54. | :59:57. | |
budgetary matters are the prerogative of the elected House. | :59:58. | :00:01. | |
And that is a most important constitutional principle, this was | :00:02. | :00:05. | |
designed to reduce the budget deficit, which everybody agrees has | :00:06. | :00:09. | |
to be eliminated, on all sides, by something like four and a half | :00:10. | :00:18. | |
billion pounds, and this is clear that this is the Chancellor of the | :00:19. | :00:24. | |
Exchequer, whichever side you may be on, and so that is the | :00:25. | :00:31. | |
constitutional position. I am not going to elaborate, so that is | :00:32. | :00:35. | |
clear. I believe there are aspects of this measure which we to be | :00:36. | :00:42. | |
reconsidered, and indeed changed. The... I think the right Honorable | :00:43. | :00:52. | |
George Osborne Chancellor of the Exchequer, made it clear that he was | :00:53. | :00:55. | |
going to be getting a lot of the savings over to the great from the | :00:56. | :01:01. | |
welfare budget, and this tax credit, which has eluded enormously, is a | :01:02. | :01:08. | |
large part of the budget. I think that is absolutely fair, but the | :01:09. | :01:12. | |
question is the particular instance of this package in the bill. And, | :01:13. | :01:22. | |
what concerns me is not that there are high marginal rates of tax, | :01:23. | :01:27. | |
which are trained to incidentally, that is the Kate -- case we all need | :01:28. | :01:34. | |
to look at. It is absurd to say that these assessed abilities can never | :01:35. | :01:38. | |
be reduced. But nevertheless, there are those tax credit systems at | :01:39. | :01:46. | |
work, that rise surprisingly high, but the scale. But here, the great | :01:47. | :01:52. | |
harm, or any great deal of harm is that the lowest end of the scale. | :01:53. | :01:56. | |
That is what needs to be looked at your. That is what concerns me. I | :01:57. | :02:01. | |
think it is perfectly possible to take more from the operand of the | :02:02. | :02:09. | |
tax credit scale, and less from the lower end of the tax credit scale. I | :02:10. | :02:16. | |
heard my noble friend, the Leader of the House, say that the Chancellor | :02:17. | :02:21. | |
would listen to this debate. I would be surprised if you were to say that | :02:22. | :02:23. | |
the Chancellor would not listen to this debate. Of course he would | :02:24. | :02:29. | |
listen to this, but it is not just this debate that is required, it is | :02:30. | :02:35. | |
change that is required. And I very much acknowledge that my noble | :02:36. | :02:40. | |
friend when he winds up indicates that there is going to be changed, | :02:41. | :02:46. | |
but we do not know what, but we will indicate that it is going to change, | :02:47. | :02:52. | |
and I must say that I intend to support the amendment in the name of | :02:53. | :02:54. | |
the right Reverend. He listens very carefully to the | :02:55. | :03:11. | |
contribution of the former Chancellor, Lord Lawson. His support | :03:12. | :03:19. | |
for what appears to be the Frank Field amendment should be taken | :03:20. | :03:25. | |
seriously. The leader can call on all of the constitutional arguments | :03:26. | :03:30. | |
that she can muster in support of the government, as indeed Ken the | :03:31. | :03:37. | |
Noble Lord came in the issue of financial privilege. All of those | :03:38. | :03:44. | |
arguments claiming to insignificance when compared to the greater | :03:45. | :03:50. | |
argument, the argument that the general public, millions of people | :03:51. | :03:53. | |
outside of this house are going to pay. That being, statements given | :03:54. | :04:00. | |
during the course of the general elections solemn undertakings given | :04:01. | :04:06. | |
by cabinet ministers to the British people on what the attitude would be | :04:07. | :04:14. | |
to tax credits. In the case of Mr golf, who gave the undertaking that | :04:15. | :04:18. | |
there would be no cut in tax credits, which he would be unable to | :04:19. | :04:23. | |
substantiate in any agreement, but what he said on television in the | :04:24. | :04:30. | |
interview, and in particular Mr Cameron, who deliberately misled the | :04:31. | :04:36. | |
British public. The British public would regard what he said now as a | :04:37. | :04:41. | |
lie. A light to win a general election. -- a lie. The British | :04:42. | :04:48. | |
public are fed up with politicians who tell lies on that scale. It | :04:49. | :04:56. | |
exceeded the misleading of the public in the case of the Liberal | :04:57. | :05:01. | |
Democrats fees, but at least they didn't know what was going to come | :05:02. | :05:08. | |
after the election. In this particular case, Mr Cameron didn't | :05:09. | :05:15. | |
know, and they set out to avoid revealing the fact by hiding behind | :05:16. | :05:18. | |
this statement that they would have to make substantial cuts. I believe | :05:19. | :05:26. | |
that those allies tromp all of the constitutional niceties. Weatherbee | :05:27. | :05:30. | |
of financial privilege, or the fatality of amendments. On that | :05:31. | :05:37. | |
basis I support the notion on the table, and the amended notion this | :05:38. | :05:43. | |
evening. The public cannot take this scale of line. MyPoints briefly. I | :05:44. | :05:57. | |
don't want anything that I say to be taken as implying a lack of sympathy | :05:58. | :06:03. | |
with the concerns of those who have spoken about the effects of the | :06:04. | :06:07. | |
government's policy. Like other peers, I have had moving e-mails | :06:08. | :06:12. | |
from many such people who expect to lose benefit to the statutory | :06:13. | :06:16. | |
instrument. I want to confine myself, however, to the | :06:17. | :06:21. | |
constitutional issue. I usually agree with the noble lady lady | :06:22. | :06:27. | |
Thomas about statutory instrument. Is a rare event that the government | :06:28. | :06:31. | |
is defeated on a statutory instrument. It has only happened | :06:32. | :06:35. | |
five times since the war. That does not mean that the house could not do | :06:36. | :06:41. | |
it. A combination here is that this is a statutory instrument about a | :06:42. | :06:45. | |
budgetary matter, which is central to the government's fiscal policy. | :06:46. | :06:51. | |
It is that combination that is unprecedented, and why I think that | :06:52. | :06:55. | |
it would be beyond the taxes up to two full power to defeat the | :06:56. | :07:04. | |
government today. To amend the coming into the standing orders and | :07:05. | :07:09. | |
proceeds to the proceeding House of Lords, which says that the House has | :07:10. | :07:14. | |
resolved that this house reserves its unfettered freedom to vote on | :07:15. | :07:20. | |
any subordinate legislation submitted for its legislation. Is | :07:21. | :07:24. | |
this not subordinate legislation from submitted for our legislation? | :07:25. | :07:32. | |
What I am saying is that the combination of statutory instruments | :07:33. | :07:34. | |
and the fiscal significance of this one are what makes it special. Is | :07:35. | :07:45. | |
the case that, none since 1911, has a government been challenged on a | :07:46. | :07:49. | |
matter of this starch. That establishes what the constitutional | :07:50. | :08:00. | |
reaches of the house implies. The Noble Lord that says no government | :08:01. | :08:04. | |
has been challenged on matters of this it's sort since 1911. 2008, in | :08:05. | :08:10. | |
July, there was a debate in this house on a statutory instrument. The | :08:11. | :08:15. | |
house came to the conclusion, it voted, there was a discussion, it | :08:16. | :08:20. | |
voted against the government and voted down the government's and | :08:21. | :08:23. | |
suggestion. Insisted that any attempt by the government to raise | :08:24. | :08:29. | |
national insurance had to be done by way of primary legislation, and not | :08:30. | :08:35. | |
statutory. Was that not also the case, in which a government was | :08:36. | :08:39. | |
trying to pursue its financial and fiscal policies, among which the | :08:40. | :08:45. | |
opposition voted it down and said that they couldn't do a bite | :08:46. | :08:48. | |
statutory instrument and had to do it by legislation? I will not | :08:49. | :08:55. | |
contest that, which I have not myself considered. The amendment of | :08:56. | :09:06. | |
the noble lady is transparently a fatal motion. She agrees with that, | :09:07. | :09:13. | |
and in my view is outside of your Lordship's constitutional role. I | :09:14. | :09:16. | |
note that my noble friend agrees with that view. The amendments of | :09:17. | :09:23. | |
the noble lady Baroness Hollis, and the lady raise a more subtle issue. | :09:24. | :09:33. | |
They are not fatal. They seek to do for our consideration of the | :09:34. | :09:39. | |
statutory instrument until the government has done certain things | :09:40. | :09:44. | |
specified in the amendments. These include surrendering some of the | :09:45. | :09:47. | |
savings which would be achieved by this measure. Who they are still | :09:48. | :09:54. | |
blocking amendments. I can best demonstrate that as follows. What | :09:55. | :10:02. | |
happens if the government refuses to do what the amendments demand? Will | :10:03. | :10:09. | |
your chips then, refused to consider the statutory instruments for ever? | :10:10. | :10:16. | |
In that case, these amendments blocked the statutory instrument | :10:17. | :10:21. | |
indefinitely. This, in my view, is not within... My Lord, may I point | :10:22. | :10:30. | |
out that the House of Commons has a very similar request before the | :10:31. | :10:38. | |
house for Thursday. That is to say, they want also more information. | :10:39. | :10:43. | |
Conservative MP's do not feel that they have gotten enough information | :10:44. | :10:48. | |
to understand the full applications of these regulations. If the House | :10:49. | :10:54. | |
of Commons votes for more information, in other words don't go | :10:55. | :10:58. | |
ahead until we know what is going on, would the Noble Lord then agreed | :10:59. | :11:03. | |
that actually that should be provided not only for the House of | :11:04. | :11:10. | |
Lords, but for the House of Commons? When the comments ask for more | :11:11. | :11:15. | |
information it should be provided. But the House of Commons has passed | :11:16. | :11:18. | |
the statutory instrument, and they cannot go back on that. Now, the | :11:19. | :11:23. | |
issue is whether the House of Lords should pass it. I believe that | :11:24. | :11:28. | |
however much sympathy of the house should have for the objectives of | :11:29. | :11:31. | |
those who would move these amendments, it would be a | :11:32. | :11:35. | |
constitutional infringement of great gravity to pass the first three of | :11:36. | :11:40. | |
them. It would be wrong on three counts. First, this is a budgetary | :11:41. | :11:46. | |
matter, and it may be up well for matter as well but it's certainly a | :11:47. | :11:53. | |
welfare matter -- it is crucial second, that was explosives in the | :11:54. | :11:56. | |
manifesto on which the government was elected only a short time ago. | :11:57. | :12:02. | |
Third, the statutory instrument has been passed by the House of Commons | :12:03. | :12:09. | |
which has that responsibility in our constitutional arrangement. It has | :12:10. | :12:12. | |
been passed not once, but three times. I cannot find myself | :12:13. | :12:29. | |
persuaded... I'm sorry. He is not addressing the house, and that he is | :12:30. | :12:38. | |
not addressing his experience... I have committed a constitutional | :12:39. | :12:44. | |
impropriety. I don't understand the point that the Noble Lord is making. | :12:45. | :12:52. | |
I am not persuaded by the noble Baroness's argument that this | :12:53. | :13:01. | |
house... I worked in many rules, giving advice, and I know that after | :13:02. | :13:08. | |
this debate there will be many members of the public who ask what | :13:09. | :13:18. | |
on earth was going on in the house? Could the Noble Lord just answer the | :13:19. | :13:25. | |
question, if the House of Lords were today to amend or vote down this | :13:26. | :13:34. | |
statutory instrument, could the government in the comments bring | :13:35. | :13:40. | |
back a 1-word change statutory instrument within the next few days? | :13:41. | :13:49. | |
Would he care to comment? I listened very respectfully who used an | :13:50. | :13:56. | |
expression I cannot understand. Could a Lord Butler explained why it | :13:57. | :14:04. | |
Lord Mackay thought that it would be offensive that the government would | :14:05. | :14:11. | |
choose to bring this item forward in primary legislation? I didn't | :14:12. | :14:17. | |
understand the reasoning, and I'm sure Lord Butler does. My Lords, it | :14:18. | :14:25. | |
is unfair if I may say so for the noble lady to ask me to interpret | :14:26. | :14:33. | |
someone else's statements. I would give the answer that I was going to | :14:34. | :14:37. | |
give about the point made by my noble friend. I can't be persuaded | :14:38. | :14:45. | |
that this house would be failing in its democratic duty if we didn't | :14:46. | :14:49. | |
block this statutory instrument so that the House of Commons could have | :14:50. | :14:52. | |
yet one more debate on it. It has had three already. Order! I am sorry | :14:53. | :15:06. | |
to intervene, but just an observation. The director for the | :15:07. | :15:11. | |
Institute for Government, Peter Riddle, who is greatly respected | :15:12. | :15:19. | |
make the following point. It is long, but I want to read it. I said | :15:20. | :15:28. | |
do the short version. " The promo act of 1911 and 1949... Do not apply | :15:29. | :15:45. | |
to secondary legislation. Order! The house was listening to the Noble | :15:46. | :15:50. | |
Lord Lord Butler. I have been a frustrated to put my points briefly. | :15:51. | :15:55. | |
Let me make one final point. There have been many times in the past | :15:56. | :16:00. | |
when there has been an oppositional majority in your Lordship's house. | :16:01. | :16:04. | |
Particularly when there has been a Labour government. There have been | :16:05. | :16:11. | |
many, many occasions when the opposition has wanted to overturn | :16:12. | :16:15. | |
the government on a fiscal matter. It hasn't happened, and in these | :16:16. | :16:23. | |
cases the opposition recognising the conventions, has exercised | :16:24. | :16:27. | |
self-restraint. It has been a slip, and has stayed within the | :16:28. | :16:30. | |
constitutional conventions. I believe that the house should do so | :16:31. | :16:37. | |
today. My Lords, and responds immediately to what the Lord has | :16:38. | :16:45. | |
said. In July 2008, in more detail, it was a fiscal matter. It was | :16:46. | :16:51. | |
government policy, no doubt, and there was no doubt that what this | :16:52. | :16:54. | |
house demanded that the government should give it up. This house | :16:55. | :16:59. | |
insisted that what the government wanted to do could only be done by | :17:00. | :17:03. | |
primary legislation and not by a statutory instrument. By Lord, and | :17:04. | :17:08. | |
has been before the House before, and house has before. It seems to me | :17:09. | :17:13. | |
that there are three major issues that this house has got to consider | :17:14. | :17:17. | |
today. Firstly, whether not financial privilege applies, the | :17:18. | :17:25. | |
effects of the way in which it has proceeded, and third whether any | :17:26. | :17:31. | |
amends are favourable. Let's start with a constitutional one. I totally | :17:32. | :17:38. | |
reject the statutory instrument made by the Chancellor, to postpone this | :17:39. | :17:46. | |
resolution would be contrary to financial understandings that exist | :17:47. | :17:51. | |
between the two housings -- houses. That is not justified, and I totally | :17:52. | :17:56. | |
reject it. The government could have avoided these constitutional | :17:57. | :17:59. | |
problems if they wanted to. They chose to legislate with this matter | :18:00. | :18:03. | |
in primary rather than secondary legislation. When you open them to | :18:04. | :18:10. | |
include these proposals in the finance Bill? Alternatively, they | :18:11. | :18:13. | |
could have legislated with a sure and separate bill. They chose, a | :18:14. | :18:21. | |
government choice, to do it by secondary legislation. That | :18:22. | :18:27. | |
inevitably curtailed debate here and in the House of Commons particularly | :18:28. | :18:32. | |
in the country. I accept that his been doubt that within a separate | :18:33. | :18:36. | |
place. Inevitably the national discussion been truncated. It has | :18:37. | :18:42. | |
been truncated to the point of extinction. There has been no | :18:43. | :18:47. | |
consultation, there's been no consultation on measures to | :18:48. | :18:50. | |
alleviate the burden the poor, is quite the contrary. None of these | :18:51. | :18:55. | |
issues have been even discussed. We don't know what, if any transitional | :18:56. | :18:59. | |
measures the government might have in mind. The government had not | :19:00. | :19:09. | |
voted for the general election. Considerable efforts to conceal the | :19:10. | :19:13. | |
fact that this was the government's intention when they got reelected -- | :19:14. | :19:20. | |
Minister after Minister appeared before the television cameras saying | :19:21. | :19:25. | |
no, no, no, there will be no tax credits. We will tell you what it | :19:26. | :19:31. | |
will be eventually. No word in the conservative manifesto. We are told | :19:32. | :19:36. | |
that in that situation, this house willy-nilly, has got to accept what | :19:37. | :19:44. | |
the government says. What the government are asking us to do is | :19:45. | :19:48. | |
not acceptable. He has set out an alternative policy | :19:49. | :20:02. | |
which the government might have followed. It did not. We are not | :20:03. | :20:10. | |
dealing with the alternative politic -- policy, we are dealing with what | :20:11. | :20:14. | |
actually happened to. What he is saying that that's what the | :20:15. | :20:17. | |
government hasn't seen and done is that they are doing something they | :20:18. | :20:22. | |
do he doesn't like. It not alter the fact that this is a met money | :20:23. | :20:27. | |
matter, and he is seeking this house to overturn a majority in the | :20:28. | :20:31. | |
Commons decision on a money matter. If I may ask, how should I interpret | :20:32. | :20:48. | |
the point of order made on the 21st of October in the other place. , | :20:49. | :20:56. | |
959. On a point of order, generations of your predecessors | :20:57. | :21:00. | |
defended the privileges of this house, and the greatest privileges | :21:01. | :21:03. | |
of all is the principle of no taxation without representation. We | :21:04. | :21:06. | |
have had a lively debate yesterday on tax credits, and many of us would | :21:07. | :21:11. | |
like to see some movement from the government. Surely it is the elected | :21:12. | :21:14. | |
representatives of the people who decide on tax and spending. The | :21:15. | :21:20. | |
Speaker responded that "I understand entirely, and my own feeling from | :21:21. | :21:23. | |
the chair is that the other place can look after its self. We also can | :21:24. | :21:30. | |
and will look after ourselves. " I think it would be a more dignified | :21:31. | :21:34. | |
for the chair not to be drawn into a public spat. In the final analysis, | :21:35. | :21:40. | |
both houses know the factual positions, and the deposition is | :21:41. | :21:53. | |
what it is. Long-standing. I am not qualified to what is in the mind of | :21:54. | :22:06. | |
Mr Lee's. To expect me to be able to do that -- of course they chose to | :22:07. | :22:20. | |
do it. Why? They chose to do it because they cut off discussion. It | :22:21. | :22:24. | |
meant that they were not accountable By Lords, there was a convention | :22:25. | :22:42. | |
that we didn't in fact vote against a statutory instruments. We do not | :22:43. | :22:49. | |
turn them down. By doing it that way, the government thought that | :22:50. | :22:51. | |
they would... Could they have done it that way | :22:52. | :23:03. | |
because of the act said that they had to do it that way? Would that | :23:04. | :23:08. | |
not be a more proper judgement of what the government did? The act | :23:09. | :23:12. | |
gave them the power to do it, DAX did not compel them to do it. If | :23:13. | :23:17. | |
they wanted to do it by parliament could have been done way. In the | :23:18. | :23:25. | |
normal way, financial privilege would have applied and none of this | :23:26. | :23:29. | |
nonsense would have been created. I have to say, the reason that the | :23:30. | :23:37. | |
government chose to legislate in this way because it was bound to | :23:38. | :23:45. | |
create conflict. That was the point of the exercise. I want to say a | :23:46. | :23:53. | |
word about disability 2008. -- this bill. This house limited the power | :23:54. | :24:03. | |
of the local government to raise the upper threshold so that it could | :24:04. | :24:07. | |
only be done through primary legislation. These two cases are | :24:08. | :24:11. | |
almost identical. In each case the government were trying to order tax | :24:12. | :24:15. | |
provisions by statutory regulation. In each case this house was standing | :24:16. | :24:21. | |
in its way, and I don't see any real difference between to. The | :24:22. | :24:26. | |
difference between the two, is that 2008... I think that is an important | :24:27. | :24:35. | |
that he is referring to a particular previous case, and is doing so in a | :24:36. | :24:41. | |
way that I do not believe is accurate, because of the examples | :24:42. | :24:46. | |
that he is citing was it to appease a primary legislation. It was not to | :24:47. | :24:51. | |
a statutory instrument. It was not statutory instrument, it was a piece | :24:52. | :24:56. | |
of primary legislation. An amendment was properly tabled to that piece of | :24:57. | :25:01. | |
primary legislation in this house. This House voted on it. This house | :25:02. | :25:07. | |
then sent the bill back to the place in a normal way, and the House of | :25:08. | :25:13. | |
Commons decided that it would invoke financial privilege. That was the | :25:14. | :25:18. | |
end of the matter. Is wrong for the Noble Lord to draw direct | :25:19. | :25:20. | |
comparisons in the way that is doing. The reason why, my Lords, is | :25:21. | :25:27. | |
that when asked about the relevance of the 19 love acts, it is quite | :25:28. | :25:33. | |
clear that secondary deflation is not covered by some of the | :25:34. | :25:37. | |
conventions that have been raised in debate during this house. What is at | :25:38. | :25:42. | |
risk here is the financial primacy of the comments. I hear what she | :25:43. | :25:54. | |
said, but to this I had to say as far as the financial privileges as | :25:55. | :25:58. | |
the House of Commons is concerned. If this house | :25:59. | :26:05. | |
it does not mean that it is dead. My lord, it needs that it is delayed | :26:06. | :26:17. | |
and implementation of it is delayed. That is probably accepted by most | :26:18. | :26:22. | |
people, that is not a knapsack on this resolution and. At the house | :26:23. | :26:31. | |
were to do that... I am not in favour of voting for the liberal | :26:32. | :26:37. | |
Democrat amendment, because I don't think that voting for statutory | :26:38. | :26:41. | |
instruments is a good thing for this house to do. I don't think I've ever | :26:42. | :26:48. | |
done it. I do think that a motion to postpone it until the other house | :26:49. | :26:52. | |
has a chance to look at it in the light of the evidence that has now | :26:53. | :26:59. | |
risen, that makes sense. I hope very much that when it comes down to it | :27:00. | :27:19. | |
that is what happens. My Lords, I want to repeat a few words that he | :27:20. | :27:24. | |
has just said. I have been listening to this debate, and I listened to | :27:25. | :27:30. | |
his argument. He persuaded me that the motion of describing the | :27:31. | :27:37. | |
legislation would raise all kinds of constituent matters. He do to | :27:38. | :27:46. | |
baronesses are declining to consider the draft legislation. You are tying | :27:47. | :27:53. | |
our hands, because when they produced this legislation we will | :27:54. | :27:57. | |
have no choice but to approve the legislation. I for one think that if | :27:58. | :28:11. | |
the Chancellor is... We are giving him advice. If we are giving him | :28:12. | :28:15. | |
advice he is going to take it. I for one think that the baronesses | :28:16. | :28:22. | |
motions are not fatal, they are simply delaying. Might noble friend, | :28:23. | :28:33. | |
the prelate, once the government to consult on relations. Well, it is a | :28:34. | :28:41. | |
question of trust. If you are not going to have the facts right before | :28:42. | :28:45. | |
you before you approve this particular is legislation, you'd be | :28:46. | :28:51. | |
forgetting your legislative responsibilities. If you are | :28:52. | :28:55. | |
revising in the chamber, surely you must do it. They may even be glad | :28:56. | :29:03. | |
that that fact have been bandied around have become clear, and | :29:04. | :29:10. | |
they're not that important. For me, like Baroness Hollis, I think that | :29:11. | :29:19. | |
she outlined clearly consequences of this hasty way of reducing and | :29:20. | :29:22. | |
cutting the stacks credits. The people are going to suffer most, and | :29:23. | :29:27. | |
those who up to now who want those tax credits in work and imagine | :29:28. | :29:32. | |
managing to get things in order. That is not good. By introducing a | :29:33. | :29:45. | |
living wage. At first, which I trusted to be calibrated soon by the | :29:46. | :29:51. | |
living wage condition. What is my basis for saying this? You all know | :29:52. | :29:54. | |
that two years ago I chaired a commission that brought together | :29:55. | :30:01. | |
people from business, industry, society, I'm how we could actually a | :30:02. | :30:06. | |
to create a brilliant way of dealing with this particular difficulty. How | :30:07. | :30:12. | |
can we tackle this? We looked closely and objectively at the cost | :30:13. | :30:18. | |
of living wage, and let me give you the evidence that is in the report. | :30:19. | :30:22. | |
The evidence pointed that the living wage is good for employees, | :30:23. | :30:28. | |
business, the economy, and if the local people. Employers are already | :30:29. | :30:33. | |
adopting a range policy and our listing thousands of people out of | :30:34. | :30:37. | |
working policy -- poverty. They're claiming tax credits, and they could | :30:38. | :30:44. | |
gain up to four billion a year in a increased tax revenues. That is a | :30:45. | :30:53. | |
much neater way of doing it. Businesses are reporting | :30:54. | :30:56. | |
productivity increases improvement in the area. The truth is that you | :30:57. | :31:05. | |
and I lose out on... Billions of pounds are being spent every year | :31:06. | :31:11. | |
when opponent finances are tight. Where inequality grows, economics | :31:12. | :31:30. | |
was not always divorced from our own ethical considerations. Adam Smith, | :31:31. | :31:36. | |
the father of modern economics, was a professor of moral philosophy. To | :31:37. | :31:42. | |
him and two other philosophers, it seemed to me that the issue that | :31:43. | :31:56. | |
we are facing here is not that economies are divided from wars at | :31:57. | :32:01. | |
ethics, but that the decisions that we take are affected by the men and | :32:02. | :32:06. | |
women who want to get out of poverty, want to get out of | :32:07. | :32:10. | |
depending on tax credits, but actually doing it properly and | :32:11. | :32:14. | |
fairly. Britain has struggled through challenging times. I hope | :32:15. | :32:17. | |
that the work that is being done by government, business done and the | :32:18. | :32:22. | |
people of the UK will take a huge step forward. The minimum wage, when | :32:23. | :32:28. | |
introduced, did not go far enough. Let me give you some research, which | :32:29. | :32:35. | |
to me seems to suggest that you as a legislative body have considered | :32:36. | :32:39. | |
delaying so that defects may be brought up. There has been a rising | :32:40. | :32:47. | |
demand for constituent credit. Many report their need to borrow. This | :32:48. | :32:53. | |
makes credit month -- worsen the credit winter months. Do want people | :32:54. | :33:00. | |
who are depending on credits to beat her into the loan sharks of this | :33:01. | :33:08. | |
country? Britain is at risk of becoming a place where the have and | :33:09. | :33:17. | |
have-nots have their own woes, when the... I want to listen more, and I | :33:18. | :33:25. | |
hope that this decision to delay ties our hands, allows us a chance | :33:26. | :33:37. | |
to take advice, and almost we are saying we pass it and that we agree | :33:38. | :33:38. | |
with it. The 20 13th summit but are, and | :33:39. | :33:50. | |
actually says that yes, over 70 years, there's something going on, | :33:51. | :33:56. | |
but many low-income households are still much worse off than in 2008, | :33:57. | :34:02. | |
leaving them struggling to make ends meet, rely on benefits, and for me | :34:03. | :34:12. | |
this means that poverty wages... The government is about deficit | :34:13. | :34:19. | |
reduction, and one way will not actually leave men or women in the | :34:20. | :34:30. | |
hands of loan sharks. My lords, Dunn my lords, I just to point to bring | :34:31. | :34:39. | |
in. First, it was my proposals in the Social Security legislation of | :34:40. | :34:46. | |
1986 which led to the reduction of tax credit, which was a success to | :34:47. | :34:52. | |
keep Joseph's family Sock, and of course the former one of tax | :34:53. | :34:56. | |
credits. Then of course, it became a Treasury matter, and went to tax | :34:57. | :35:03. | |
credits. But obviously, I've got us a considerable sympathy with the | :35:04. | :35:07. | |
general case that is being put in the debate. Second, I was about six | :35:08. | :35:14. | |
years secretary of health and Social Security, and as such, no one's idea | :35:15. | :35:20. | |
of natural support of the Treasury, and all their schemes. ... LAUGHTER | :35:21. | :35:31. | |
Various chances and chief secretaries, might do that. Perhaps | :35:32. | :35:36. | |
I could add just in parentheses in this heated debate, throughout my | :35:37. | :35:41. | |
time that while I was doing Social Security, my shadow Minister who | :35:42. | :35:48. | |
died last week, we did not agree on very much, but he was a very | :35:49. | :35:52. | |
honourable and totally sincere man, and he will be very much missed. My | :35:53. | :36:03. | |
lords,... My lords, I spent three months every year debating the | :36:04. | :36:08. | |
Treasury with proposals that they have put forward, and they put | :36:09. | :36:12. | |
forward on my budget. One counterargument I never used was | :36:13. | :36:23. | |
that the specific cost cutting measures, not in the manifesto, | :36:24. | :36:26. | |
frankly I have a lot of trouble keeping the Treasury to recognise | :36:27. | :36:31. | |
what was in the manifesto. Every government introduces measures not | :36:32. | :36:35. | |
contained in the manifesto, and the last thing I did was to introduce | :36:36. | :36:40. | |
the dock labour scheme, and there was not a word of that in the | :36:41. | :36:42. | |
manifesto. Back in my old Social Security death, under pressure from | :36:43. | :36:48. | |
the Treasury, that was the whole basis of measuring inflation and the | :36:49. | :36:56. | |
cost of well over ?1 billion. The reduction in benefits bending will | :36:57. | :37:01. | |
always be unpopular. I found that in the Cabinet, everyone was in favour | :37:02. | :37:06. | |
of the general argument that when it came to the specific, they always | :37:07. | :37:11. | |
said please, not that way. And frankly, I have decided that I think | :37:12. | :37:18. | |
the conservative manifesto in 2015, spelled out what is intended with | :37:19. | :37:23. | |
more clarity in this area, then any manifesto I can remember on either | :37:24. | :37:27. | |
side. The government said in words, that they would have -- find ?12 | :37:28. | :37:33. | |
billion from welfare savings, and that is... Hang on. Leverages finish | :37:34. | :37:42. | |
my point. That is a good deal, more specific than any manifesto I had | :37:43. | :37:48. | |
anything to do it, myself, and indeed any manifesto which I ever | :37:49. | :37:55. | |
came across. I give way. Does he think it was right then for Mr | :37:56. | :38:05. | |
Cameron to rule out tax credit cuts at the time of the general election | :38:06. | :38:10. | |
to think he was right to do so? I think we have been around this | :38:11. | :38:14. | |
before, and the Noble Lord has made this point several times, but more | :38:15. | :38:17. | |
to the point, and has not considered now three times in the House of | :38:18. | :38:24. | |
Commons, and has been rejected, in fact, I think he was talking but | :38:25. | :38:28. | |
considering child tax credit, not the whole web. And what the | :38:29. | :38:36. | |
manifesto Alston made clear in words that the pension ratings would be | :38:37. | :38:43. | |
protected in other words, that area of the retirement would be fenced. I | :38:44. | :38:47. | |
don't think there was any controversy about that. But, but | :38:48. | :38:52. | |
obviously that meant is that I bring fencing pensioners benefits, they | :38:53. | :38:59. | |
now had the field of very existentially with a ?12 billion | :39:00. | :39:03. | |
cuts followed. Not everyone will agree with that, and indeed, my | :39:04. | :39:10. | |
major reason for introducing family credit was concerned for low income | :39:11. | :39:13. | |
working families with children, but even then it was clear that what was | :39:14. | :39:21. | |
happening was that pensioners were increasing in that. And that was not | :39:22. | :39:26. | |
actually being put forward by the low income families. But, what I do | :39:27. | :39:32. | |
say is that I do not think that anyone can imagine how spending on | :39:33. | :39:36. | |
tax credits was to escalate in the way that it did. Tax credits are | :39:37. | :39:41. | |
being tripled in the ten years up until 2010, and was estimated to be | :39:42. | :39:50. | |
about ?13 billion a year. Doubt was a long way from the original game. | :39:51. | :39:57. | |
But I accept, my lords, that none of this was the fault of the families | :39:58. | :40:01. | |
who are struggling to make ends meet, often in very difficult | :40:02. | :40:05. | |
circumstances. I totally accept and agree with that. I therefore welcome | :40:06. | :40:12. | |
the measures of the Leader of the House, where she said that these | :40:13. | :40:19. | |
matters would now be cleared, and again, I would hope that when they | :40:20. | :40:26. | |
are, we can find room to look particularly at the petition of | :40:27. | :40:30. | |
families with children, and that it seems to be is a particular | :40:31. | :40:39. | |
priority. And the emotion is precisely upon this. Were the | :40:40. | :40:42. | |
government to do this or not, and this is the point, it is frankly a | :40:43. | :40:51. | |
matter... Who is asked on this, and other financial matters, that the | :40:52. | :40:55. | |
House of Commons and not to others. The common sense position,... I will | :40:56. | :41:07. | |
give weight. My lord, I hate to interrupt, but he said clearly that | :41:08. | :41:11. | |
the leader had talked the House that these measures would be considered. | :41:12. | :41:16. | |
Now I think I listened quite naturally to all of this, and I'm | :41:17. | :41:20. | |
not sure I heard that. I'm very happy to be corrected. I give that | :41:21. | :41:32. | |
to the leader of to put those into specific words, but I do not think | :41:33. | :41:36. | |
that is not an unfair representation of what she said. We are, my lords, | :41:37. | :41:44. | |
the unelected House, the other place is the elected one. Measure has | :41:45. | :41:49. | |
Artie been voted, on twice, if not three times, and we cannot have this | :41:50. | :41:58. | |
trying to impose its will on ?500 of savings to be in if I can say if | :41:59. | :42:03. | |
there's one thing to the members of the House of Commons, who are here, | :42:04. | :42:10. | |
I do not remember when we were ordered in the House of Commons | :42:11. | :42:13. | |
together, and I'm saying we must give more financial power over what | :42:14. | :42:18. | |
happens over the House of Lords. I do not remember at any stage of that | :42:19. | :42:24. | |
point being made, and I do not remember that being made by anyone | :42:25. | :42:30. | |
in any one party, on this particular position. I think a certain degree | :42:31. | :42:39. | |
of humility are in order. My lords,... Does this not show that | :42:40. | :42:48. | |
our powers of statutory instruments are far too drastic? As was pointed | :42:49. | :42:53. | |
out and report on conventions, and it would be bad if we gave up the | :42:54. | :42:59. | |
power to accept or reject a statutory instrument in exchange for | :43:00. | :43:02. | |
maybe two amendments, which would deal with Noble Lord, Lord Lawson's | :43:03. | :43:12. | |
point, we could not oppose it. There may be a lifeboat out of this, if we | :43:13. | :43:17. | |
could actually get something out of it, in the way we're dealing with | :43:18. | :43:21. | |
secondary legislation, with all of this in the future? I think that is | :43:22. | :43:27. | |
something that we can consider for the future, and on first hearing, | :43:28. | :43:31. | |
sounds like an attractive proposition. But we are considering | :43:32. | :43:35. | |
what we're now, and not for the future. If I may make this last | :43:36. | :43:43. | |
point. In spite of some of the criticism, and the attack, now being | :43:44. | :43:47. | |
directed at this house, it is my view that this house carries out a | :43:48. | :43:53. | |
very valuable function, a serious function, and the members I meet | :43:54. | :43:57. | |
your day by day are hard-working, not just on the floor of the House, | :43:58. | :44:02. | |
but in select committees. I do think we need to recognise one | :44:03. | :44:07. | |
common-sense thing. Long as this is an appointed house, we must accept a | :44:08. | :44:12. | |
limitation on our powers, particularly in financial properties | :44:13. | :44:17. | |
Gabi to ignore those limitations, that is not in the interest and not | :44:18. | :44:21. | |
in the interest in the House of Lords, and it is not in the interest | :44:22. | :44:25. | |
of the public. It cannot be justified, and that is why I will be | :44:26. | :44:27. | |
voting against against these amendments. My lords,... My lords, I | :44:28. | :44:47. | |
just rise to said that we have been going at this now for well over two | :44:48. | :44:55. | |
and a half hours, and many points, and there have been strong arguments | :44:56. | :44:58. | |
on each side of the argument. And many points have been made on the | :44:59. | :45:06. | |
speeches which have not only been lengthy, but mighty. I find it | :45:07. | :45:13. | |
difficult to conceive that there are any more arguments that could be | :45:14. | :45:18. | |
deployed LAUGHTER On either side of the argument, as I | :45:19. | :45:25. | |
would submit that it... We have reached the point where we need to | :45:26. | :45:29. | |
cut to the point, where we make up our minds, and it is time to come to | :45:30. | :45:40. | |
a conclusion. My lords, I accept the point of the Noble Lord, but if I | :45:41. | :45:45. | |
may I think I have one or two points that have not been made before, and | :45:46. | :45:49. | |
if the House would indulge me, I would be grateful for the | :45:50. | :45:53. | |
opportunity to do so. I will not go over the case against the | :45:54. | :45:57. | |
regulations and their current form, that has been argued powerfully | :45:58. | :46:03. | |
tonight from all benches, and the need for reconsideration, I think, | :46:04. | :46:09. | |
we could almost pass. The issue before us is whether it is | :46:10. | :46:13. | |
constitutionally appropriate for the House of Lords to use its most | :46:14. | :46:20. | |
potent, most well known weapon of delay. In respect of these | :46:21. | :46:27. | |
regulations. Very powerful speeches were made from bishops, and correct | :46:28. | :46:32. | |
that I'd just say that I'm delighted that the right Reverend is here for | :46:33. | :46:40. | |
today's debate, and I should either born or can soul, but it is not | :46:41. | :46:44. | |
always this. LAUGHTER However, I hope that the bench and | :46:45. | :46:53. | |
others will consider that it might be appropriate for the House to use | :46:54. | :46:58. | |
its powers of delay tonight, and I favour the motion in the name of the | :46:59. | :47:04. | |
noble lady. Because it gives us an alternative to eight fatal amendment | :47:05. | :47:11. | |
on a matter which I think is of high political importance. It gives us | :47:12. | :47:18. | |
the opportunity of delay, and asking the Commons and through than the | :47:19. | :47:26. | |
government, to think again. Now, the noble lady and the Leader of the | :47:27. | :47:29. | |
House, said when she introduced the debate, that she had seen the | :47:30. | :47:32. | |
Chancellor of the Exchequer today, and I think that the words are ever | :47:33. | :47:38. | |
used were that he would listen very carefully, to what was said in the | :47:39. | :47:44. | |
House today. I accept that. I have to say that having had the privilege | :47:45. | :47:47. | |
of being in both houses, that I think he will listen even more | :47:48. | :47:51. | |
carefully to what is said in the House of Commons, on Thursday. And I | :47:52. | :47:55. | |
would like him to have the opportunity to do that, so I have | :47:56. | :48:02. | |
asked myself whether the fact that this is innovative, in terms of... | :48:03. | :48:12. | |
Was something that we should therefore enjoy. My answer is no. If | :48:13. | :48:18. | |
we have the power to kill a statutory instrument and send it | :48:19. | :48:21. | |
back to base, then surely, we have the power to delay a statutory | :48:22. | :48:30. | |
instrument, and weight for that reconsideration. On the question of | :48:31. | :48:34. | |
whether this is being discussed in another place, absolutely I | :48:35. | :48:39. | |
understand that. Doesn't need consideration? Yes, I think it does. | :48:40. | :48:42. | |
And actually, my lords, every time we discuss an amendment bill that | :48:43. | :48:48. | |
has gone through the House of Commons, it is probably being voted | :48:49. | :48:53. | |
on three times. My second reading, the committee, and on the report. | :48:54. | :48:58. | |
That does not inhibit us the first time around, I'm saying will you | :48:59. | :49:05. | |
please look again. For me, the only question to make is the question of | :49:06. | :49:10. | |
financial privilege. And, I hesitate to cross swords with either Noble | :49:11. | :49:15. | |
Lord, or my noble friend, but I think this situation is not as | :49:16. | :49:21. | |
clear-cut as they set out. If this were a finance Bill, we would have | :49:22. | :49:32. | |
no part in. If it were a taxation as side, it would only go to the House | :49:33. | :49:37. | |
of Commons. But it is not. This is an essay under "ordinary | :49:38. | :49:46. | |
legislation." And under that, on this bill, this house considers | :49:47. | :49:51. | |
amendments and sends them to the House of Commons. The House of | :49:52. | :49:55. | |
Commons can then do what it likes to do. It can accept them, it can offer | :49:56. | :50:03. | |
a compromise, it can reject them, or it can invoke financial privilege. | :50:04. | :50:11. | |
But that is after this house has asked them to think again. I think | :50:12. | :50:18. | |
again that that is the best answer been an analogy with the Finance | :50:19. | :50:23. | |
Act. This is the statutory instrument that is under a piece of | :50:24. | :50:28. | |
welfare legislation, not under a finance Bill. To me,... I am very | :50:29. | :50:37. | |
grateful to the noble lady, but surely there is an analogy. There is | :50:38. | :50:44. | |
an analogy with finance bills, and finance bills to come to your | :50:45. | :50:48. | |
Lordship's house, but we pass them without amendment, because that is | :50:49. | :50:52. | |
the Constitutional convention. That is similar to what we're being asked | :50:53. | :50:56. | |
to do on the statutory instruments. I have to say to the Noble Lord | :50:57. | :51:00. | |
Butler, that the financial convention, and not has not stayed | :51:01. | :51:06. | |
absolutely the same for 300 years, the financial convention was that | :51:07. | :51:09. | |
this house did not think about the finance Bill, or indeed economic | :51:10. | :51:14. | |
measures. In 2000... In the year 2000, we set up the economic affairs | :51:15. | :51:18. | |
committee, the House of Commons went into freeform about encroachment on | :51:19. | :51:25. | |
financial privilege. Even more so, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown at | :51:26. | :51:33. | |
the time, was incandescent at the idea that there should be a | :51:34. | :51:36. | |
subcommittee looking at the finance Bill. In fact, those things happen, | :51:37. | :51:43. | |
and the world did not collapse, financial privilege, the right of | :51:44. | :51:49. | |
the comments to have the final say, was not impeded. To my mind, this is | :51:50. | :51:55. | |
the matter of very high and clear-cut politics, and it is a | :51:56. | :51:59. | |
matter of very nuanced constitutional significance. And | :52:00. | :52:07. | |
overall, I believe that the power of this house is most important power, | :52:08. | :52:14. | |
while leaving the last word to the other place, is to ask the other | :52:15. | :52:21. | |
place to think again. And I would urge the House to use that power | :52:22. | :52:22. | |
this evening. My lords, this has been quite an | :52:23. | :52:35. | |
extraordinary debate. I think it is unusual that your Lordship's house | :52:36. | :52:41. | |
finds itself at the centre of such a vivacious policy, and | :52:42. | :52:43. | |
constitutionally as it does today. It is also extraordinarily unusual | :52:44. | :52:49. | |
that for a matter that affects a Department of work and pensions, and | :52:50. | :52:54. | |
the Treasury, we have no Treasury or DW key ministers dressing your | :52:55. | :53:01. | |
Lordship's house today. I can understand why the government feels | :53:02. | :53:05. | |
more comfortable talking about constitutional issues on this | :53:06. | :53:08. | |
regard, than it does about the impact of this policy. That is | :53:09. | :53:13. | |
something that we all understand. But it was, again, extraordinary | :53:14. | :53:17. | |
when the noble lady, the Leader of the House, supported an amendment to | :53:18. | :53:23. | |
the government's policy, when she supported the Bishop's amendment. It | :53:24. | :53:27. | |
seems quite in the extraordinary. My lord, this is unprecedented today. | :53:28. | :53:33. | |
And, I think it is good to see the Noble Lord... Thank you for giving | :53:34. | :53:40. | |
way. I think it is important, because she has interpreted from | :53:41. | :53:46. | |
what I had said, incorrectly, I was very clear that the government does | :53:47. | :53:52. | |
not any amendment to its motion. What I said, was that the right | :53:53. | :53:58. | |
Reverend had brought forward his concerns in a way which we have | :53:59. | :54:03. | |
consistently with the conventions and proper roles of this house. I | :54:04. | :54:10. | |
think that is a bit of an angel's on a pinhead defence. I think when he | :54:11. | :54:16. | |
took on the role as the defence minister he said his job was not to | :54:17. | :54:22. | |
defend... My lords, we are being asked to prove the government's tax | :54:23. | :54:25. | |
credit. We are unable to do so today, and I think the reasons why | :54:26. | :54:31. | |
it had been very carefully laid out. There is a pernicious regulations, | :54:32. | :54:37. | |
but do enormous damage, because as sleep they could dramatically cut | :54:38. | :54:42. | |
the incomes of the poorest in society, and those that are working | :54:43. | :54:46. | |
hard, and they're doing at the government says is the right thing, | :54:47. | :54:51. | |
and they have now about 3 million people that will be affected by | :54:52. | :54:55. | |
these cuts. Like many other lords, I've had e-mails and letters from | :54:56. | :54:58. | |
those who are likely to be affected. From nurses, teachers, cleaners, | :54:59. | :55:05. | |
firefighters, people working hard trying to raise families, and they | :55:06. | :55:10. | |
are terrified of what lies before them. They do not know how they are | :55:11. | :55:15. | |
going to cope. And, I think the noble lady got e-mails about those | :55:16. | :55:23. | |
with disabilities, and have been moved into work and finding | :55:24. | :55:30. | |
something for them. Another baroness spoke today, and the House was | :55:31. | :55:35. | |
silent. We could heard a pin drop. As we heard these cuts will really | :55:36. | :55:43. | |
mean and the impact they will have on people across this country. And I | :55:44. | :55:46. | |
think when I say to the noble lady, the House was shocked and upset | :55:47. | :55:50. | |
about the information she provided today, but she also provided a way | :55:51. | :55:58. | |
through. And, the Noble Lord Lawson, said tax credits have increased at | :55:59. | :56:03. | |
?30 billion, and they have. That is part of their success, because | :56:04. | :56:06. | |
obviously we have seen the income support reduced as people went into | :56:07. | :56:12. | |
work, because they no longer need income support, but they were | :56:13. | :56:16. | |
receiving tax credits. That was a successive measures. As people moved | :56:17. | :56:20. | |
into work, bed tax credits to reflect their consensus, and liver | :56:21. | :56:25. | |
was then told the way out of poverty is work. That is because people in | :56:26. | :56:29. | |
tax credit have done. That have moved into work. It may be that... | :56:30. | :56:38. | |
To lose ?35 and ?30 a week from income. But for a lot of people out | :56:39. | :56:42. | |
there, that ?25 or ?35 a week is devastating. Indians not putting in | :56:43. | :56:49. | |
money for the heater when it gets cold. It means that those kinds of | :56:50. | :56:55. | |
choices that we should never place on families. My lords, it is a | :56:56. | :57:01. | |
highly contentious area, it is the policy that is important. Now, | :57:02. | :57:06. | |
having said that, I think there are conventional issues and | :57:07. | :57:10. | |
constitutional issues that noble Lords have raised, and I've given | :57:11. | :57:14. | |
some concern. I have to say to the Noble Lord, it would of course, as | :57:15. | :57:19. | |
we have word, normally be expected for measures of the major and | :57:20. | :57:23. | |
magnitude of this, to be introduced by primary legislation. As the | :57:24. | :57:28. | |
government bill, go through the stages, have the opportunity to be | :57:29. | :57:32. | |
debated, have amendments put to it, and voted on. And we have | :57:33. | :57:36. | |
opportunities to make revisions, these are the concerns that were | :57:37. | :57:40. | |
raised. One has to wonder why the government did not take that route, | :57:41. | :57:45. | |
because they can apply for financial privilege, but they've chosen to | :57:46. | :57:48. | |
deal with this measure for statutory instrument. My lords,... I'm sorry | :57:49. | :57:56. | |
to interrupt, but we did hear from the Noble Lord, McKay, that this | :57:57. | :58:03. | |
came as the result of the Secretary of legislation from the tax credits | :58:04. | :58:07. | |
legislation, introduced by another Lord. As a result, this is a natural | :58:08. | :58:13. | |
progression from that piece of legislation. So I find it difficult | :58:14. | :58:17. | |
to understand whether the noble lady could explain why that was wrong. I | :58:18. | :58:21. | |
can help certainly. In 2002, the legislation went through a lot of | :58:22. | :58:26. | |
amendments to tax credits legislation made by statutory | :58:27. | :58:31. | |
instrument, delegated direct -- legislation,... Could be applied. | :58:32. | :58:40. | |
But major policy changes would not normally be made in any sort of | :58:41. | :58:46. | |
things by this kind of regulation. Furthermore, as I said in my | :58:47. | :58:51. | |
intervention to Lawson, the legislation itself in 2002, was not | :58:52. | :58:56. | |
itself subject to financial privilege. Been out of the | :58:57. | :58:59. | |
government saying that statutory legislation follows off of that, and | :59:00. | :59:04. | |
should be subject to financial privilege. So I did just the | :59:05. | :59:08. | |
concerns that global has died noble lady has raised. I'm so sorry to | :59:09. | :59:14. | |
interrupt. But I think it is an important point for the House to | :59:15. | :59:20. | |
understand that the original bill in 2002 tax credits act, was not | :59:21. | :59:24. | |
certified as a money bill. Because it included changes to the | :59:25. | :59:29. | |
administration of the welfare system. Had just been about | :59:30. | :59:34. | |
financial measures that we are debating, then it would probably | :59:35. | :59:39. | |
have been certified as an amendment to be but it was the addition of | :59:40. | :59:43. | |
administration that made it not to be certified as that. I took those | :59:44. | :59:51. | |
two bills to this house, and I can tell the noble lady, such | :59:52. | :00:01. | |
considerations never arose. ... Aborted because certification of the | :00:02. | :00:07. | |
bill is done by the Speaker. She makes my point for me, that major | :00:08. | :00:14. | |
issues like this, major changes, are undertaken in primary legislation, | :00:15. | :00:20. | |
but let's leave that to one side as it may. Anybody out and the real | :00:21. | :00:24. | |
world listening to us talking today would wonder what on earth we are on | :00:25. | :00:28. | |
about, primary legislation, secondary legislation, affirmative | :00:29. | :00:33. | |
and negative, actually what really matters is the impact it has on | :00:34. | :00:38. | |
applying common sense approaches, and what is before us today. We know | :00:39. | :00:44. | |
as parliamentarians that at size are more normally use for that specific | :00:45. | :00:53. | |
detail, issues... Already approved and while. And, as I've said, we | :00:54. | :00:57. | |
very properly use that kind of normal upgrade and tax credits, and | :00:58. | :01:04. | |
I think a I made the point about 2002 earlier. This proposal before | :01:05. | :01:12. | |
us today is way beyond that normal kind of operate. It is a major | :01:13. | :01:17. | |
policy change, that the government was not promised not to do, but it | :01:18. | :01:20. | |
is a significant and major policy change. The route the government has | :01:21. | :01:27. | |
chosen is not the wrong route, but there are consequences of taking | :01:28. | :01:31. | |
that, if the government chose a truncated process, and said not to | :01:32. | :01:34. | |
have that for consideration of the House of Lords, at the same time | :01:35. | :01:39. | |
allows this house so the normal constitutional procedures of your | :01:40. | :01:41. | |
large APPLAUSE Debate and discuss it, and debate and discuss the kind | :01:42. | :01:45. | |
of amendments that would have before us today. This is not a fatal | :01:46. | :01:51. | |
amendment, whatever the noble labour -- noble lady and her colleagues may | :01:52. | :01:56. | |
think. We have made numerous references, she's shaking her head, | :01:57. | :01:59. | |
but the evidence is there. It is very clear-cut. Now, if the | :02:00. | :02:03. | |
government has gone down normally, we would not be here today. There | :02:04. | :02:08. | |
would have been for the debates in the House of Commons, with MPs, and | :02:09. | :02:11. | |
I think MPs from across the House who privately and publicly as well | :02:12. | :02:19. | |
admitted that this goes too far to quickly, and causes too much harm. | :02:20. | :02:25. | |
Now, I think the motion by Miss Hollis is what I refer to as a | :02:26. | :02:30. | |
common sense approach. That can really make a difference. It is in | :02:31. | :02:36. | |
line with what mode -- most people in this contrasting four, 60% of the | :02:37. | :02:39. | |
population today are reporting to work to see a U-turn, or changing | :02:40. | :02:43. | |
this policy, and that is what the noble lady is seeking to do. It | :02:44. | :02:48. | |
calls on this house to reject these proposals as they stand, and for | :02:49. | :02:53. | |
ministers to come back with proposals or schemes to protect | :02:54. | :02:56. | |
those already given tax credits for at least three years. That is all of | :02:57. | :03:01. | |
them. In the past, -- if this were to pass, what happens next? To take | :03:02. | :03:06. | |
his proposal away, and reconsider that. The government can afford to | :03:07. | :03:13. | |
proposals for the consideration. He iterated that it disappears into the | :03:14. | :03:16. | |
ether. The government is committed to doing something, and we can bring | :03:17. | :03:20. | |
back the proposals tear lordships House, because we're working on a | :03:21. | :03:23. | |
private legislation if you wish. If it felt to be anything back at all, | :03:24. | :03:26. | |
it would mean the government could not proceed with these cuts, and | :03:27. | :03:30. | |
they would have to take another route, and reconsider the policy. No | :03:31. | :03:35. | |
government is right all the time. Best rice -- and this house is right | :03:36. | :03:39. | |
to ask that and have it reconsider, think again, pause,... | :03:40. | :03:47. | |
Hill nobody can compel the government to do what the motion and | :03:48. | :03:53. | |
says. If the government does not than the House of Lords is refusing | :03:54. | :03:58. | |
to consider this hot this indefinitely. Government wants to do | :03:59. | :04:06. | |
nothing. The government would have us believe, what is hinted at, is | :04:07. | :04:10. | |
that it is happy to look at things again. I do not accept his argument | :04:11. | :04:15. | |
on that. What is clear that might noble friend's a minute would force | :04:16. | :04:20. | |
the government to look again. They would have to look at this issue | :04:21. | :04:25. | |
again and see where they can make significant changes to protect those | :04:26. | :04:29. | |
who are currently terrified of the cuts to their income. My Lords, I | :04:30. | :04:37. | |
think that this is not a fatal apartment, it does not block the | :04:38. | :04:40. | |
government plans, and allows them to reconsider. What we have is a | :04:41. | :04:48. | |
constitutional duty to scrutinize, examine, and challenge. When the | :04:49. | :04:53. | |
government has clearly got it wrong they must think again. We were | :04:54. | :04:59. | |
sparring partners at a distance today, and even those voting with | :05:00. | :05:02. | |
the government tonight say that I have grave concerns about the | :05:03. | :05:06. | |
policy, I want to see change. The honourable Lady has to know that | :05:07. | :05:11. | |
they are voting because she is trying to make this a constitutional | :05:12. | :05:15. | |
issue, not because they can't be tax credit. We are given an opportunity | :05:16. | :05:23. | |
to address the concerns that have been expressed by peers and members | :05:24. | :05:27. | |
of Parliament of both parties, including very senior members, and | :05:28. | :05:32. | |
including those on the bench behind her. I want to address the question | :05:33. | :05:39. | |
of why he the motion has not been put forward like the Liberal | :05:40. | :05:43. | |
Democrats have? I think that in policy terms there is little between | :05:44. | :05:48. | |
us on this issue. I think that it is significant that a fatal motion was | :05:49. | :05:52. | |
only tabled after government had threatened retaliation to -- if the | :05:53. | :06:00. | |
Lordship's House amended the cuts. I think they let the government off | :06:01. | :06:04. | |
the hook a bit because there are more talking about constitutional | :06:05. | :06:08. | |
issues. I think that the important issue before us today is that | :06:09. | :06:12. | |
looking at how we can protect people from what the government has | :06:13. | :06:18. | |
proposed. My one regret is that we love the focus to be off the issue | :06:19. | :06:23. | |
and onto the Constitution. The government, having won the ball in | :06:24. | :06:28. | |
the comments, quickly returned with new primary registration -- | :06:29. | :06:31. | |
legislation to avoid consideration to your Lordship soused. We believe | :06:32. | :06:38. | |
that's is the only consideration that can lead to considerable | :06:39. | :06:43. | |
change. The clamour of voices call them to think again, and that is the | :06:44. | :06:47. | |
right role for your Lordship's House to take. Those voices are clamoring, | :06:48. | :06:52. | |
not just here in Parliament, but in the children's society, think | :06:53. | :06:58. | |
tanks, as well as newspapers, who are poor on government. We have had | :06:59. | :07:03. | |
to think of the arguments as to whether this oversteps our | :07:04. | :07:05. | |
constitutional authority. It does not. I will give way. Could she tell | :07:06. | :07:17. | |
us how much the ladies per puzzle would cost? She is very keen to | :07:18. | :07:27. | |
tell. I had hoped that he had out would in his courteous way refer to | :07:28. | :07:35. | |
that the savings would come from the government automatically by the rise | :07:36. | :07:38. | |
in living wage of which three quarters of a billion each and every | :07:39. | :07:41. | |
year a cruise back to the government. Secondly, by the fact | :07:42. | :07:45. | |
that new claimants due to tax credits are not covered by -- and | :07:46. | :07:51. | |
third because the national office says that by 2019 over 90% of those | :07:52. | :07:57. | |
tax credits will be on universal credit, where they will have the | :07:58. | :08:02. | |
cuts. The government will have matching savings which probably | :08:03. | :08:05. | |
exceed the Barakat said that the government demands. My Lords, I | :08:06. | :08:12. | |
think that the point that the Noble Lord he makes... LAUGHTER date the | :08:13. | :08:20. | |
point that she makes is that this is a choice for the government, not a | :08:21. | :08:26. | |
necessity. I think that what we have seen over the last week, and it has | :08:27. | :08:31. | |
lightened all of us on the government reluctance to accept | :08:32. | :08:35. | |
challenge or proper scrutiny, there is no constitutional crisis looming | :08:36. | :08:46. | |
adult. -- at all. The prime minister has not dealt with a very serious | :08:47. | :08:51. | |
problems with this task are the policy. In the last Labour | :08:52. | :08:55. | |
government, we lost dozens of votes here in the House of Lords on a | :08:56. | :09:01. | |
range of issues. I'm at 18 -- on 18 -- on one Ko we accepted and moved | :09:02. | :09:11. | |
on. There was no point that this official opposition does not accept | :09:12. | :09:15. | |
the right of the government's legislation. It has to do so | :09:16. | :09:19. | |
properly, and must do a properly on getting things right all of the | :09:20. | :09:23. | |
time. On this case, we should really believe that the government has got | :09:24. | :09:29. | |
it wrong. I have to say that the threats that have been made to the | :09:30. | :09:33. | |
House of Lords as an institution is nothing more than Parliamentary | :09:34. | :09:38. | |
Bouvier. Threats to suspend the House of Lords, to cut borrowings, | :09:39. | :09:43. | |
do nothing to address the issues before us, and have given rise to | :09:44. | :09:48. | |
concerns. There is a need for true reform to your Lordship soused. -- | :09:49. | :09:55. | |
house. Those threats have nothing to do with reform, and everything to do | :09:56. | :09:59. | |
with the government not wanting to be challenged, and not wanting to | :10:00. | :10:04. | |
think again. My Lords, I think that my final point is that this is a | :10:05. | :10:10. | |
common sense what to do things. This hostile to the issue, it considers | :10:11. | :10:14. | |
that, it think that the government has got it wrong, so we should send | :10:15. | :10:18. | |
it back to the government and urge them to rethink and comes back with | :10:19. | :10:23. | |
something significantly better at that doesn't harm and create | :10:24. | :10:28. | |
enormous fear in those people in work who are struggling to make ends | :10:29. | :10:31. | |
meet who are terrified of the letters that are going to come into | :10:32. | :10:36. | |
their letterboxes near Christmas. Will not exceed our authority, but | :10:37. | :10:42. | |
neither will we be cowed into neglecting our responsibilities to | :10:43. | :10:51. | |
making the government accountable. My Lords, the privilege of falls to | :10:52. | :10:54. | |
me as a deputy leader of winding up this debate, which has proved a | :10:55. | :10:59. | |
remarkable one. In a number of ways, a landmark in the proceedings of the | :11:00. | :11:05. | |
house. We have been treated to extremely powerful contributions | :11:06. | :11:13. | |
with for and against, and for and against amendments that have been | :11:14. | :11:15. | |
tabled. I listened with care to them all. I suggested to your lordships | :11:16. | :11:21. | |
that there are two aspects of the matter that we are here to consider. | :11:22. | :11:27. | |
The contents of the regulations themselves, and the issues, with | :11:28. | :11:32. | |
want of a better term, I will call the constitutional questions that | :11:33. | :11:35. | |
arise out of three of the amendments for us. Let me turn first to the | :11:36. | :11:41. | |
policy. Without unnecessarily going over the ground already covered by | :11:42. | :11:45. | |
my noble friend the Leader of the House, there is one central point to | :11:46. | :11:49. | |
be made at the outset. I make this point given and a number of the | :11:50. | :11:53. | |
noble Lords have seen fit to criticise both the intent and the | :11:54. | :11:56. | |
effects of what the government is seeking to achieve. The government | :11:57. | :12:04. | |
wants a new deal for working people. A deal whereby those who claim | :12:05. | :12:08. | |
neither tax credits nor universal credit, will all the ways be better | :12:09. | :12:15. | |
off in work, and always better off working more. The way that we are | :12:16. | :12:20. | |
doing this will mean that a typical family man or woman, working | :12:21. | :12:24. | |
full-time on the national with -- living wage, will be better off by | :12:25. | :12:28. | |
the end of this Parliament, substantially better off, then at | :12:29. | :12:32. | |
the beginning of it. That is the aim that we set for ourselves, and it is | :12:33. | :12:38. | |
an aim that runs parallel with our policy of incense, which we have | :12:39. | :12:41. | |
made it expressly clear for nearly two years now, they conservative | :12:42. | :12:45. | |
government, if and when elected, would look to find welfare savings | :12:46. | :12:50. | |
of around ?12 billion in order to reduce the public sector deficit. I | :12:51. | :12:56. | |
would simply say to the noble Baroness that the proposals that she | :12:57. | :13:00. | |
has constructively put forward in her contribution are in fact already | :13:01. | :13:03. | |
built into the assumptions that we have made. I am happy to look at her | :13:04. | :13:10. | |
proposals in more detail, but from what she has said the Chancellor has | :13:11. | :13:15. | |
already factored these points in the. Achieving these two policies | :13:16. | :13:20. | |
simultaneously is only possible if a series of measures are taken. | :13:21. | :13:25. | |
Measures that will move us from a position in which working households | :13:26. | :13:31. | |
are supported by a low wages and high tax credits, to one where there | :13:32. | :13:34. | |
are higher wages and lower tax credits. The regulations before us | :13:35. | :13:42. | |
today are only about the tax credit elements of the overall picture. | :13:43. | :13:47. | |
That is why it is unfair to pick up the report from the in of fiscal | :13:48. | :13:51. | |
studies, and to point with alarm to a large loss which a poor worker and | :13:52. | :13:58. | |
family might incur from a cut in tax credits, without also taking into | :13:59. | :14:01. | |
account other vitally important things that we are doing. The | :14:02. | :14:08. | |
counterbalance to lower tax credits is a commendation of positives. The | :14:09. | :14:14. | |
national living wage, the rise the income tax personal allowance, and | :14:15. | :14:23. | |
importantly... The Institute of fiscal studies is clear in | :14:24. | :14:27. | |
incorporating the effects of not only the tax credit changes, but | :14:28. | :14:32. | |
also the rise in the minimum wage and the international living wage, | :14:33. | :14:37. | |
as well as the increase in the income and tax thresholds, and then | :14:38. | :14:40. | |
make it very clear that the redistribution of fax of all of | :14:41. | :14:44. | |
these things from the port to the rich. I don't dispute that they | :14:45. | :14:52. | |
looked at these things, but the figure of ?1300 does not take into | :14:53. | :14:56. | |
account the positives that I have mentioned. Importantly, with | :14:57. | :15:00. | |
families with children, the doubling of free childcare should not be | :15:01. | :15:04. | |
overlooked. That, for many people, but not for all, will make it | :15:05. | :15:09. | |
possible to work longer hours. These are just some of the counterbalance | :15:10. | :15:18. | |
is. Noble Baroness chosen not to mention. I cannot pretend that these | :15:19. | :15:23. | |
have been easy decisions. However, I put it to the house that the | :15:24. | :15:27. | |
measures that we are taking are the right thing for us to be doing, not | :15:28. | :15:33. | |
right for individual working families, but also for the nation. | :15:34. | :15:38. | |
We are still, as a nation, living grossly beyond our means. Even so, a | :15:39. | :15:44. | |
out of ten working households will be better off by 2000 Stewart to | :15:45. | :15:52. | |
making than they are now, because of the combined effect of the measures | :15:53. | :16:01. | |
that we are now taking. 2017. Can he support that eight out of ten | :16:02. | :16:07. | |
households -- we have not had those impact assessments done. The | :16:08. | :16:15. | |
distribution analysis that came out at the time of the budget... Is the | :16:16. | :16:23. | |
Minister as saying that a out of ten people currently on tax credits are | :16:24. | :16:27. | |
being subject to these cuts, are they similarly going to be better | :16:28. | :16:34. | |
off? A out of ten working families, whether or not on tax credits... It | :16:35. | :16:42. | |
is an important point to factor in, because the rise in the national | :16:43. | :16:53. | |
living wage will affect not just of those on tax credits. Many millions | :16:54. | :16:59. | |
of others who are paid above that level in the so-called ripple effect | :17:00. | :17:07. | |
that has been widely affect. -- discussed. I wonder if the ministry | :17:08. | :17:12. | |
would than a focus on the two out of ten that he says are losers, and | :17:13. | :17:18. | |
tell us how many people those are, how many children there are in those | :17:19. | :17:22. | |
families, and what their loss is likely to be? We are talking about a | :17:23. | :17:27. | |
million people, largely children with families, and I think that he | :17:28. | :17:32. | |
will be able to confirm that they, in the lowest deciles of the | :17:33. | :17:42. | |
population in terms of poverty. Let me address that. It has been said by | :17:43. | :17:49. | |
some noble Lords and the noble Baroness is question implies that, | :17:50. | :17:53. | |
that the brunt of these savings will be those on tax credits. Those who | :17:54. | :17:59. | |
are worse off, I beg your pardon. That is not the case. The 10% of tax | :18:00. | :18:09. | |
credit on the highest income, ?42,000, a contributing nearly four | :18:10. | :18:14. | |
times as much to the savings that we are proposing as the poorest | :18:15. | :18:20. | |
claimant. That is an important point to factor in the. The problem of | :18:21. | :18:25. | |
talking about those at the lower end of the scale is that everyone's | :18:26. | :18:29. | |
circumstances are difficult -- different. Somehow people -- so that | :18:30. | :18:35. | |
children some doubt, some have disabilities some don't, and it is | :18:36. | :18:40. | |
very difficult to particular eyes. Why can I say is that the cutting | :18:41. | :18:45. | |
public spending that we are now proposing to these regulations is | :18:46. | :18:51. | |
one that will take us back, not to some far distant point in the past, | :18:52. | :18:56. | |
but to the levels of spending seen in 2007 two 2008, for the financial | :18:57. | :19:03. | |
crash. I'm talking about the spending in its totality. One cannot | :19:04. | :19:08. | |
particular eyes an individual case, because peoples circumstances would | :19:09. | :19:17. | |
be different. I am grateful for the Deputy leader for giving way. He is | :19:18. | :19:21. | |
giving a defence, and it does not give much of an indication that the | :19:22. | :19:25. | |
government will be thinking again as some members of the opposite bench | :19:26. | :19:29. | |
have been indicating. Before he came here today, I wonder if he spoke to | :19:30. | :19:32. | |
the leader of his party in Scotland? He said over the weekend | :19:33. | :19:39. | |
that "if we are not the party of getting people into work, there will | :19:40. | :19:42. | |
are we therefore? It is not acceptable. Dame is there, but we | :19:43. | :19:48. | |
cannot have people suffering on the way. The idea that there is a cliff | :19:49. | :19:52. | |
edge before the uptake and wages comes in is a real, practical, human | :19:53. | :19:57. | |
problem, and the government needs to look again at it. " With a? Those | :19:58. | :20:04. | |
questions fail to take into account what I've mentioned, the national | :20:05. | :20:11. | |
living wage... Wade maybe I wasn't clear when I indicated that that is | :20:12. | :20:14. | |
the leader of his party in Scotland. Wade I cannot take those | :20:15. | :20:23. | |
comments in any context having not read them. I heard what you reported | :20:24. | :20:30. | |
of the leader of the conservative party in Scotland, but I am not | :20:31. | :20:34. | |
aware of the general context of which she was speaking. I hope you | :20:35. | :20:43. | |
understand that. The budget for the entire nation's entire defence | :20:44. | :20:53. | |
spending... The regulations before us account for a ?4.4 billion of | :20:54. | :20:58. | |
public expenditure in the next financial year. That is a large | :20:59. | :21:04. | |
slice of the defence budget, but it is not the total defence budget. It | :21:05. | :21:10. | |
will, however, mean that the Chancellor has more money at his | :21:11. | :21:14. | |
disposal to spend on schools and hospitals, and on those with | :21:15. | :21:19. | |
disabilities. Incidentally, I would say to the Archbishop of York, the | :21:20. | :21:25. | |
national living wage is only possible because the economy of this | :21:26. | :21:29. | |
country is strengthening. It is strengthening because there is a | :21:30. | :21:33. | |
high degree of confidence in the government's economic programme, and | :21:34. | :21:38. | |
it's ability to deliver economic stability amongst other things, | :21:39. | :21:43. | |
reducing the deficit. One has to look at the totality of what the | :21:44. | :21:49. | |
Chancellor's programme looks at. My Lords... The living wage commission | :21:50. | :21:59. | |
which I chair was working with commissions and it was a good | :22:00. | :22:03. | |
climate. Weaver clear that those companies that can't afford to pay | :22:04. | :22:07. | |
should pay a living wage, and you'd be interested to note that even | :22:08. | :22:13. | |
before the economic stuff started brewing, there was an ethical | :22:14. | :22:21. | |
conviction that their workers, the greatest evil on her majesties | :22:22. | :22:25. | |
people is that some people are not being paid a living wage. Those | :22:26. | :22:30. | |
companies talk on the need to pay a living wage, even when the economy | :22:31. | :22:37. | |
was bad. The economy has proved, and if it has, why aren't we helping the | :22:38. | :22:47. | |
poorest and those most in need? We are doing so, and we are doing so | :22:48. | :22:50. | |
through the national living wage. We should welcome the fact that these | :22:51. | :22:54. | |
companies are paying the national living wage, and there are 200 major | :22:55. | :22:59. | |
companies already doing it. That is a good thing, and I congratulate him | :23:00. | :23:05. | |
for the work that he is done in this area. I don't think there's much | :23:06. | :23:13. | |
between us on this. Is an impression that was given that my suggestion as | :23:14. | :23:24. | |
-- he wants to cut four point for billing to the living wage, but the | :23:25. | :23:30. | |
report shows that 5 million are being paid a living wage and | :23:31. | :23:34. | |
there'll be a last tax credit on those. Because the people are is | :23:35. | :23:44. | |
over, that is why... It is interesting that the Institute for | :23:45. | :23:49. | |
Fiscal Studies said in the report that the Chancellor made quite a big | :23:50. | :23:55. | |
choice in the budget to protect some of the poorest people on tax | :23:56. | :24:01. | |
credits. That is self evidently true, and I would add in response to | :24:02. | :24:06. | |
the noble Baroness who I'm sorry is not her place, oh she is... Baker | :24:07. | :24:16. | |
pardon. The disabled, and severely disabled on the working tax credits | :24:17. | :24:20. | |
will not be cut to these measures. They will be operated by inflation, | :24:21. | :24:26. | |
and in fact the government is making savings in tax credits so they can | :24:27. | :24:31. | |
protect disability benefits, which have been protected from the | :24:32. | :24:35. | |
benefits freeze and the welfare cap, including a DLA, and the support | :24:36. | :24:39. | |
group component of the ESA as well as disability components of the tax | :24:40. | :24:45. | |
credits as I have mentioned. I hope that this is some reassurance. My | :24:46. | :24:53. | |
Lords, despite alibis -- why what we're doing is necessary and right, | :24:54. | :24:56. | |
I recognised that there are those who are in opposition and will | :24:57. | :25:01. | |
remain unpersuaded. Let me address of the amendments. Other than in the | :25:02. | :25:08. | |
rarest of circumstances, it is against the long-standing | :25:09. | :25:10. | |
conventions of this house, and therefore I would suggest for us to | :25:11. | :25:18. | |
not bow down or block secondary legislation. Those records | :25:19. | :25:24. | |
circumstances I would argue, do not include those -- this situation. | :25:25. | :25:31. | |
These noble Lords should not be challenging the House of Commons on | :25:32. | :25:36. | |
spending and taxation. That point was made by Lord Butler. The sums | :25:37. | :25:42. | |
involved are not trivial. The relations before us would account | :25:43. | :25:48. | |
for welfare savings of 4.4 billion in 2016. We can argue my Lords, and | :25:49. | :25:54. | |
I am interested in arguing by dumping that it would be profitable, | :25:55. | :26:01. | |
about the technicalities of whether these relations are or are not | :26:02. | :26:05. | |
financial. In substance, they are financial. I would, therefore say | :26:06. | :26:14. | |
that the Baroness's amendment should not be put to a vote. It's the | :26:15. | :26:24. | |
Baroness is situation is simple. There is a choice before this house, | :26:25. | :26:29. | |
either to a proof or not to approve these relations. It is a binary | :26:30. | :26:33. | |
choice. The noble Baroness's are inviting the house to withhold our | :26:34. | :26:40. | |
approval. We can argue endlessly, once again, about the technicality | :26:41. | :26:44. | |
of whether the wording of these amendments is or is not fatal in | :26:45. | :26:50. | |
nature. The reality is that if either amendment were passed, this | :26:51. | :26:54. | |
house would not have approved these relations. Is no good saying that | :26:55. | :27:01. | |
this would merely amounts to asking the House of Commons to think again. | :27:02. | :27:08. | |
I can do that with amendments to primary legislation, but with | :27:09. | :27:12. | |
secondary legislation there is no mechanism for a dialogue between the | :27:13. | :27:16. | |
houses, and no mechanism to allow the will of the comments to prevail | :27:17. | :27:25. | |
it in respect of this instrument. Does he accept that she does not ask | :27:26. | :27:31. | |
the House of Commons to think again, but to ask the government to | :27:32. | :27:35. | |
reconsider its proposals, she is asking the government to | :27:36. | :27:42. | |
reconsider? I accept that. Per amendment is asking the government | :27:43. | :27:46. | |
to do something other than what is in the regulations. By definition, | :27:47. | :27:50. | |
that means that if her amendment were carried, we could not bring | :27:51. | :27:57. | |
back the same set of proposals, and implementations of these relations | :27:58. | :28:01. | |
would not be delayed as the Baroness is suggesting, it would be thwarted | :28:02. | :28:06. | |
entirely. She is asking the House to accept a false proposition. Is very | :28:07. | :28:17. | |
interesting that the noble Baroness herself has recently given an | :28:18. | :28:26. | |
interview which certainly implies that her amendment is a fatal one. | :28:27. | :28:31. | |
The interview that she gave to the Huffington Post, she said that in | :28:32. | :28:36. | |
the interview if the memo were carried it would mean that the | :28:37. | :28:39. | |
government could not go ahead with the cuts. That, to me, is very fatal | :28:40. | :28:52. | |
indeed. My Lords, therefore. I'm surprised, with all of this | :28:53. | :28:58. | |
experience he seemed to be suggesting that there is no | :28:59. | :29:02. | |
significant difference between a fatal amendments and a nonfatal | :29:03. | :29:06. | |
amendments. In the kind I have been here, which is less than his, has | :29:07. | :29:16. | |
been a quite clear distinction. The Leader of the House seems to be | :29:17. | :29:22. | |
unclear about in her initial presentation. There is no | :29:23. | :29:25. | |
distinction between the Lib Dem amendment and the Labour amendment. | :29:26. | :29:31. | |
The difference is fundamental, and if he does not accept my | :29:32. | :29:34. | |
proposition, can he at least enlighten the House as to what the | :29:35. | :29:40. | |
professional advice from Clark has been to him and to the conservative | :29:41. | :29:44. | |
front bench as to which of these amendments are fatal, and which are | :29:45. | :29:50. | |
not? There is a clear difference in the wording, but the effect is | :29:51. | :30:02. | |
exactly the same. As my point. I have the greatest respect for him, | :30:03. | :30:07. | |
but in her speech my noble friend the Baroness said exquisitely that | :30:08. | :30:13. | |
she had drafted her amendment with the explicit help of the park of the | :30:14. | :30:19. | |
parliaments. The cart of the parliament said that it was not a | :30:20. | :30:23. | |
fatal amendments. The Lord challenging that? I cannot gainsay | :30:24. | :30:29. | |
the Clark of the parliaments. Heaven forbid. Perhaps what was meant that | :30:30. | :30:40. | |
the wording that the noble Baroness's amendment is not of a | :30:41. | :30:44. | |
kind one associates with a fatal amendments. Nevertheless they | :30:45. | :30:54. | |
traditionally worded fatal amendments is that, in the words of | :30:55. | :31:03. | |
the being the been lady Baroness... I am sure that she got good advice. | :31:04. | :31:07. | |
The best advice is that there is. What we are looking it at is that | :31:08. | :31:15. | |
what we're looking at what happened? It would frustrate the | :31:16. | :31:21. | |
governments intent. I would like to ask the Minister, does he think that | :31:22. | :31:27. | |
it would be impossible if these two amendments were parsed, -- past, | :31:28. | :31:39. | |
with vehemence be brought back? Be amended to hold the government | :31:40. | :31:43. | |
hostage. We might be able to bring back some different regulations, but | :31:44. | :31:45. | |
what if those were unacceptable to the house? Read their wording of the | :31:46. | :31:53. | |
amendment. It puts aside with perpetual treadmill. There is an | :31:54. | :32:04. | |
important distinction between the amendment of the Baroness and my | :32:05. | :32:11. | |
amendment. The crucial difference, not a fatal amendments, is that all | :32:12. | :32:15. | |
it asks for is some time and some information. Pays a very different | :32:16. | :32:21. | |
thing than asking the government to spend money on the transitional | :32:22. | :32:27. | |
arrangements. I have put on at this amendment for one reason, and that | :32:28. | :32:30. | |
is because the House of Commons has a cross party motion on Thursday, | :32:31. | :32:36. | |
which they will debate with eight conservative MPs. Does the Minister | :32:37. | :32:44. | |
accept that to give the government time to listen to the comments is | :32:45. | :32:49. | |
actually entirely inappropriate duty for this house to perform? | :32:50. | :32:55. | |
The fact is that the House of Commons with at this three times, | :32:56. | :33:02. | |
and has not overturned the proposal, in fact it has been approved, and I | :33:03. | :33:06. | |
would simply say to the noble Baroness that there is, if we're | :33:07. | :33:12. | |
talking about the advice given in Parliament, there is a crucial | :33:13. | :33:16. | |
difference between an amendment procedurally permissible to bring | :33:17. | :33:21. | |
before the House, and an amendment which it is constitutionally proper | :33:22. | :33:26. | |
for the House to approve. I do not take issue with the noble Baroness | :33:27. | :33:31. | |
bringing her motion here, or noble Baroness Lady Hollis, and what I do | :33:32. | :33:34. | |
take issue with is the idea that we should vote in favour of either of | :33:35. | :33:38. | |
them. Or indeed, that of the other one. Now, I need to conclude for the | :33:39. | :33:46. | |
House to withhold its consent to the regulations today, would in favour | :33:47. | :33:49. | |
of either of them. Or indeed, that of the other one. Now, I need to | :33:50. | :33:51. | |
conclude for the House to withhold its consent to the regulations | :33:52. | :33:54. | |
today, being overruling in the House of Commons, on an issue which that | :33:55. | :33:56. | |
House has already expressed its view one, three times, in other words, it | :33:57. | :33:59. | |
would mean doing what this house has not done, for more than a hundred | :34:00. | :34:04. | |
years, which is to seek to override the primacy of the House of Commons | :34:05. | :34:08. | |
on a financial matter. So I say, respectfully, to the noble Baroness | :34:09. | :34:16. | |
that there is a right way and a wrong way to challenge the | :34:17. | :34:19. | |
government policy, on a matter of this kind, and this is the wrong | :34:20. | :34:23. | |
way. The right way is either to table amendments such as the one in | :34:24. | :34:28. | |
the name of the right Reverend, not that I support it, but that is the | :34:29. | :34:31. | |
proper way of doing it, or for a suitable opportunity to table | :34:32. | :34:35. | |
amendment to a piece of primary legislation, and indeed there is a | :34:36. | :34:39. | |
bill coming to us shortly. The welfare reform work bill, which | :34:40. | :34:44. | |
would enable local lords to do that, should they so choose. So, my | :34:45. | :34:50. | |
contention is this: Been needs and regulations for a central plank of | :34:51. | :34:53. | |
the programme, on which the government was elected in May, a | :34:54. | :34:57. | |
programme that has been in the public domain for a long time, | :34:58. | :35:02. | |
however, even if they were not, even if these were policies dreamt up by | :35:03. | :35:06. | |
the chancellor overnight, I respectfully say to you that this | :35:07. | :35:10. | |
house under its conventions should not reject statutory adjustment, nor | :35:11. | :35:17. | |
seek to overturn the primacy of the other place on a matter of a very | :35:18. | :35:22. | |
sizeable public expenditure. And I therefore in light the sponsors of | :35:23. | :35:28. | |
each amendment to withdraw them, and I would urge the House to allow the | :35:29. | :35:34. | |
regulations to pass. And I would simply remind the House that in | :35:35. | :35:38. | |
order to support the motion, and the amendment in the name of the right | :35:39. | :35:43. | |
Reverend, the previous three amendments need either to be | :35:44. | :35:54. | |
withdrawn, or defeated. My book, I want to thank for the contributions | :35:55. | :35:59. | |
to this debate, and you will be relieved to hear that I do not | :36:00. | :36:05. | |
intend to summarise. All of the excellent contributions that have | :36:06. | :36:07. | |
been made from all sides of the House today. As your lordships now, | :36:08. | :36:14. | |
I'm a relatively new member of the lordships House, and for me, it is a | :36:15. | :36:19. | |
privilege to serve as a member of your lordships House, but with that | :36:20. | :36:24. | |
privilege, comes responsibility. My lords, tabling this motion was not | :36:25. | :36:29. | |
something I did a member of your lordships House, but with that | :36:30. | :36:31. | |
privilege, comes responsibility. My lords, tabling this motion was not | :36:32. | :36:34. | |
something I did likely. On the role of this house, and I do not believe | :36:35. | :36:37. | |
that this is a situation in which the House should find itself | :36:38. | :36:43. | |
regularly. However, ultimately, and this is about this house making a | :36:44. | :36:48. | |
decision on whether we think it is acceptable for the government to cut | :36:49. | :36:53. | |
off vital support for 3 million families, which it claims to | :36:54. | :36:59. | |
support. Is about whether we think it is acceptable for the prime | :37:00. | :37:04. | |
minister to make these changes, not via primary legislation, but by a | :37:05. | :37:09. | |
procedural instrument, in direct contradiction of what he set to be | :37:10. | :37:13. | |
able to do during the general election. Is about whether we think | :37:14. | :37:20. | |
it is acceptable for this house to relinquish its responsibilities to | :37:21. | :37:24. | |
those affected. I welcome the Leader of the House saying that the | :37:25. | :37:31. | |
Chancellor will be listening to this debate very carefully. And I hope | :37:32. | :37:37. | |
also, in my lords, I could not look myself in the eye tomorrow. I did | :37:38. | :37:45. | |
not too I could to stop this devastating measure going through. I | :37:46. | :37:51. | |
know that many in my party feel the same, and while I hold no ill will | :37:52. | :37:57. | |
against anyone that do not share our view, I hope that those who are | :37:58. | :38:05. | |
doing this in the lives of those 4.9 million children should be our | :38:06. | :38:09. | |
primary concern, and join us in the voting lobbies. Tax credit cuts for | :38:10. | :38:16. | |
the low-paid working families are short-sighted, and deeply damaging, | :38:17. | :38:19. | |
not only for parents and children, that will bear the cost, but also | :38:20. | :38:23. | |
for the government's on long term goals. I urge the government to | :38:24. | :38:28. | |
rethink, and I hope that the House will choose to reject the | :38:29. | :38:35. | |
regulations, as they stand. I wish to test the opinion of the House. My | :38:36. | :38:41. | |
lords, I beg to move. The question is that the amendment in the name of | :38:42. | :38:47. | |
the Baroness be agreed to. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To | :38:48. | :38:54. | |
the contrary, "no". I think the noes have it. | :38:55. | :39:18. | |
My lords, my lords. LAUGHTER The question is that the | :39:19. | :42:27. | |
As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The | :42:28. | :42:36. | |
ayes, will go to the right, and the noes will go to the left. | :42:37. | :42:45. | |
My lords, my lords. The question is that this mad dash amendment be | :42:46. | :48:02. | |
approved. -- amendment. | :48:03. | :48:07. |