26/10/2015 House of Lords

the House of Commons after the votes which is expected at about half past

five, you can follow live coverage of both chambers of on our website.

Instead, this is a Dailymotion, it is not as the government knows, it

was drafted with the help of the clerks. It calls for a scheme of

transitional protection before the House further considers this

essentially, my lords the courts would apply to the new payments on

the new payments only. Frankly, that could be drafted in a week. And

implemented next April exactly as planned. Does it none the less my

lords break prevention by trespassing on commoners financial

privilege? No. The advice, can be referred by words on the specific

issue as that comments financial privilege is exercised in two ways.

Begin and then an education bill that the laws can reject our

amendment if the Speaker certifies that the comments has financial

privilege on this issue. Secondly, the Commons can pass a supply on any

bill which we cannot amend. Financial privilege does not extend

to statutory instruments. Hear, hear! It simply does not. Nor are

statutory instruments covered by the preventions. More so, I would add,

because the poor minister ruled them out himself, and he did because

these layered elements to tax credits are all affected by the

paper and the Kotze. My lords, as has been said if government wanted

financial privilege these cuts should be in a money bill. They are

not. If they wanted the right to overturn them on the grounds of

financial privilege, it could as has been said been introduced in the

welfare reform bill on its way here. They did not. So, why now my lords

should we be expected to treat this as I as financially privileged when

the government itself who could have made it so chose not to do so? Hear,

hear! My lords, it is not a constitutional crisis, that is a fig

leaf described disguised between members of the government. My lords,

we can be supportive of the government and give them what they

did not ask for, financial privilege, or we can be supported

instead of those three minutes 3 million families facing letters at

Christmas telling them on average they would lose up to around 1300

pounds a year. A letter which would take away 10% of their income on

average. Those families believed us, they beat us when we all said that

work was the best route out of poverty, that work would always

pay. They believed the Prime Minister what he promised that tax

credits would not be touched. But why do people need tax credits, if

the House would allow me two woman in a poor Center, one single working

35 hours a week from April earned 13 K a year for herself. Another a dead

mother with two and children managing 25 hours a week earns 9000

a year for the three of them. We Saturday, I am completely right on

this, we certainly should not be subsidizing employers do pay. But no

employer could pay the deserted mother twice as much per hour as a

single woman on the next phone in the core centre to make up for her

family circumstances. The employer cannot do that. Is not reasonable

that we should ask it, that is the job of tax credits which reflect

family circumstances which the employer cannot reasonably do. My

lords, 43% of single-parent is now 65% of 18% increase partly because

of tax credits make work pay for them. That is our contract with her.

She has done everything we asked, now we will send her editor at

Christmas taking away some ?1300. Her life is hard, she needs

financial stability at which to bring opera children. She needs

transitional protection to the cuts only affects those will not put

their lives around the protection that tax credits currently offer. My

lords, national newspapers from the telegraphed to the sun are asking

the government to think again before it goes Christmas letters arrive.

The ISS says the Treasury are arithmetically impossible. Get those

Christmas letters will still arrive. Members of the conservative

party have expressed as the cards are too hard and too fast. Yet those

letters will still arrive at Christmas. BBB told perhaps among

others, we have talked about this and he has gone on record as saying

this but the comments has made your position clear the times already

that in nasty's general debate on tax credits. My lords, is that

right? What happens my lords when the Commons has in my view made its

decision on incomplete decisions some of which is only now becoming

available? The government insists taking the average ?1300 from 3

million poor families, there is. They can and should offer

transitional protection to existing families, called on tax credits,

single parents, the self-employed it is tens of thousands a year. We

could protect them, those on universal credits my lords. You

would not know this from the impact analysis which I have to say, I am

confident that the government does not need to make the specific cards

which it has authority to do. Why? Two Major points my lords. From the

additional revenues by return to government from the rise indeed very

welcome national living wage. There is an increase back to the

government of the quarters of ?1 million, 753 million, that was about

to be back government. The effect of differentials which we cannot

populate. By year two, the government is making savings of that

alone, maybe 3 billion. Second, I don't think this is mentioned

anywhere in the Commons debates, it is crucial those cuts will also take

in as families move over to universal credit, as I am sure the

Noble Lord would confirm. By the end of 2019, the National Audit Office

says an 9%, 9% less than one intends of existing tax credits recipients

will still be on tax credits. Will no longer need them, the neck rest

of the payments should be on universal credits and the government

will get its full savings from them. The statutory instrument cuts for

tracks credits are more sustainable, and marketing. Quite my Lords, since

track tax credits will have disappeared. My Lords, some of this

data that I would have liked to have used more robustly, the government

does not collect. Over the next four years, these savings to government,

from the rise in wages, he moved to a universal credit, and the natural

turn of claimants, I estimate should match and more than match the

savings that HMT claims that it needs from these specific tax credit

cards. If so, the government gets its welfare savings, and can get its

welfare savings. I'm not sure about tax rates of work pension release,

but the government can get its welfare savings without these

specific cuts. My Lords, I ask you, should the comments not even have

discussed this? Have made it different to their position? They

have not discussed it so far. We don't know. We don't have that

information, and impact analysis did not give that information, some of

it is now only coming out. It is reasonable that as the information

comes to that challenges, the comments should be given a chance to

think again in the light of that. My Lords, this makes a motion is not

fatal, it does not challenge financial privilege, and he does not

tonight government its welfare savings. It delays in the SSI to ask

the government to provide additional protection for existing families who

are doing everything that we ask of them. Who trusted the prime

minister's word, that tax credits would not be cut, and a trusted

Parliament, us. My Lords, when we said that we would make work pay, my

Lords what happens next? If the house were to support my motion, the

government could come back quite quickly, I estimate it a week, with

a new aside in which these rates and can't apply only to new claimants.

Is all. It is very simple. If the House agreed to that new SI, it

would then go to the comments, who would accept it, or rejected.

Their's would quite properly, absolutely beady final word, as our

conventions demand. They would have kept to the premise, and that is

right. We would have kept safe, with struggling families, and perhaps

ever store some taken from it. My Lords, let the final words rest with

what families themselves say, as they face those Christmas letters. I

quote "I already work 40 hours a work under minimum wage of doing two

jobs around my children. I cannot believe that this is actually going

to happen. I am terrified. We are not scroungers, we worked

unbelievably hard just to keep going, and once again we are being

punished for trying to earn a living wage. " She will ease -- lose a over

?1000 a year after she gets a Christmas letter. "My husband works

for full-time as a firefighter. We have four children. We won't

survive." She stands to lose in her Christmas letter ?2940. Rachel, from

Milton Keynes. "They probably means, that his parents will skip a few

extra meals to ensure that our children eat. " She is standing to

lose in her Christmas letter ?2005. Finally, my Lords. Tony from my city

of Lords. " My children are exhausted. Their Christmas letter

--" they will lose ?60 a week and her Christmas letter. ?2120. A

family where she is in full-time work, and she is worth caring for

disabled children. ?3000. We do not need to do this to them. Last week,

the prime minister said let us make work pay. He is right, and this

motion is in that spirit. It will protect deserted mothers and loan

the parents who want their children to grow up in a household where

their parent works. Parents who live out their lives instruments to

others, and struggle to maintain a foothold in the Labour market.

Families, who exhausted themselves caring for disabled children, were

the self-employed who we hope will help us build a more productive and

entrepreneurial economy. My Lords, if we don't pass my motion today, or

even if we pass the Bishop's motion, this as I becomes law tonight. Law

tonight. Whatever the comments decides on Thursday, the Chandler

then need to do nothing at all, because the aside -- as I will make

it right by law. Is that what we want? Or do we want to give the

comments a pause to think about this additional information, additional

information that is coming through from the think tanks, and additional

thoughts that members of the conservative party may no half in

the light of the correspondence with their constituents. He my Lords, I

hope I don't some pious, but I think that this is about honouring our

alert, the prime minister's word that work must always pay. It is

about, surely, respect for those who strive to do everything that we ask

of them. For those who now find themselves punished for doing what

is right. It is about trust between Parliament and the people that we

serve. I beg to move. -- I'd like to echo the last words of the noble

lady. My Lords, I deeply regret that the

government's regulations before us today lead me and others in this

house for whom politics is not a vocation, to be part of a debate

with constitutional and political implications. I'm aware of her

Majesty's government manifesto commitment to eradicate deficits,

including through welfare payments. Also of the studies of lack of

detail about how this was to be achieved. It is impossible to claim

now that we should somehow have anticipated these proposals when

they were not detailed. Indeed, we were assured that sharing the burden

was appropriate, and network should pay. My primary concern with these

regulations is with a short-term impact on some of our poorest

families. We have been encouraged to consider these measures as part of a

package of measures, that includes increases in the minimum wage toward

the national living wage, childcare provision, and raising the income

tax threshold. We are told that this is a five-year programme on a

journey toward a higher pay lower tax lower welfare economy. This

argument will be stamped consolation to the three million and more low

income families who will see a very large reduction as we have heard in

their tax credits from next April. To be assured that you will be

better off in five years' time will not help these families to pay the

rent, or gas, or electricity bills. The government is boldly confident

that this will be so. This will be so within five years. Their

confidence for the future sounds like extraordinary I do missing

today for the working families, including 4 million children who

will pay such a huge price, and bear such a heavy burden immediately on

the introduction of these changes. Of course, I welcome the pledge, to

incrementally increase the minimum wage, which will benefit some next

year, and may give small amelioration to those on the minimum

wage. Only for them, unless, as time passes, there may just be some knock

on rollover impact on wage levels for those on a very modest wage,

just above the present minimum. The likeliest knock on effects in the

short term will be indebtedness, Terrance, mental, health, and

children's education and future life chances. In addition to a sudden

drop of income of up to 10%, many will face a marginal 80% hit on the

income, Weatherby increase or rise wages, and even higher in some

instances when other benefits are factored in. If that were a marginal

tax rate, there will be howls of protest. What reward is that? For

those willing to work hard? It is also grossly insensitive to the many

Puritans who already work full-time, or struggle to work their work with

childcare and other responsibilities in order to provide for their

family's financial and other needs. While the increase in the minimum

wage, the rise in the income tax threshold is being phased in over

the years, the changes to the income threshold from tax credit, any

increase in the taper rate take immediate effect. Of course,

employers should pay decently, and not rely on the rest of us to

subsidize their low rates of pay. While they may expect to be rewarded

for better practice, with changes in company taxation, those receiving

tax credits will receive the impact immediately. A carrier for some, a

stick for others. -- carrot. I say it that these proposals are morally

indefensible. It is clear to me, and I believe to very many others, that

these proposals blatantly threatened damage to the lives of millions of

our fellow citizens. This must not be the way to achieve the

government's goals, at a cost to those who, if we believe to the

rhetoric, the government intends to encourage and support. To many in my

diocese, and well beyond, this seems punishing rather than encouragement.

I hope that we can here this afternoon assurance, a commitment,

to consult and to listen, and a willingness to revisit these

proposals in the coming weeks. A commitment.

He's spoken movingly and greatly about the end injustice and

suffering that has been called by the passing of this unamended.

Doesn't it feel in those circumstances that it is not just

our duty to talk about it or record our objection, but to do something

to stop the? I am grateful for the intervention. I believe that our

first duty is to speak, and in a variety of ways to act. That would

involve, as many of you know, very many who participate in charitable

organizations and support on the ground I'm a end I commit that those

in my diocese will do our very best. I had my very self will be listening

to this debate before I determine how I shall vote on the amendment

before us. I return, if I may, to those commitments I asked that the

government might make over the coming weeks. I asked the North

noble Baroness if she can make those commitments on behalf of the

government's during the last few days, I have wrestled long and hard

with the question of how to vote, and guess how to vote, and how to

speak today. Part of the dilemma has been anger, and the party political

point scoring, any rating of the issues around constitutional

matters. That has obscured what ought to be a measured and careful

consideration as to the best interests of the poorest workers in

our society. I am appalled by the government's proposals. I

emphatically did not table of this amendment, because of party

political pressures. I am aware of the conflicting views of

constitutional matters. This amendment offers an alternative, and

in the opportunity to do, no matter what happens to the other three

amendments, for this house to register its disapproval of these

proposals. Also its expectations that are reservations will be

addressed. Your Lordship's house in my judgement must make that clear. I

will be listening carefully to further contributions this

afternoon. I intend to vote with the interests of those who have most to

lose to this bill. -- in my heart. Should other amendments fail, fall,

then I present mine as a respectful, but for my message to the government

that disability is not acceptable in its current form, these regulations

are not acceptable in their current form. Significant work is required

for us to be satisfied that the needs of those working for low

incomes will be met. My Lords, high. -- hello. My Lords,

we have just heard a very moving -- moving the speech is in relation to

this matter. I have no doubt that as the gator of the House has said, the

Chancellor will consider these matters very carefully. I know that

it is extremely difficult to analyse the precise effects of income tax or

tax credit changes to an individual circumstance. Your lordships will

remember that when Mr Gordon Brown, as the Chancellor, sought to take

out of the tax system be 10% tax a band that had previously existed,

the difficulty of finding out precisely who were affected and how

they were affected turns out to be extremely difficult. I believe that

the difficulties in this connection also may well be that the

information that arises in the course of the attempt to deliver

this will show in detail what is required if changes should be made.

My Lords, I am intending to do only with the constitutional question as

I see it. These draft regulations are made under the tax credit act,

which sets up mechanisms for the payment of tax credits of two types.

Children's tax credits, and work tax credits. The arrangements were under

the control of the land read Brendan, who are entitled under

schedule two to deduct the tax credits from the income of the board

to taxation. It is perfectly clear that these tax credits are a charge

on the taxes raised. The details of the credits, and the machinery

needed for the registration that were sent out in the sections of the

act. Section 66 of the act says that "no registration of this subsection

replies -- no amendment will be made whether another provision has been

laid before and prevent -- approved by a resolution of each house of

parliament. " Some of parliament." Some sections won't apply to

regulations on a monetary amounts which are required to be reviewed

under section 41. The section -- system under which this instrument

has been made, and accordingly the instrument before the House requires

to be approved by each house of Parliament before it be made. The

instrument, as we know, was approved by the other place, and to reverse

it was defeated in the other place. It has come to us as a matter which

has been fully considered so far as the other place has been concerned

up to now. In considering this, regard must be had to the financial

privileges of the other place. This is not a question of the conventions

of this house, it has nothing to do a fat. It has to do with the

financial privileges that book blog to the House of Commons. He so far

as I understand it, there is nothing to prevent a motion, on the lines

that have been proposed here, being considered by this house. The

question is whether the consideration can properly interview

with the financial interests of the chamber. My Lords, the practice is

ruled today by resolutions which remain in the 16 70s. The last one

of these, the fullest, is that all aid and supplies, aides to his

Majesty and Parliament, are the sole gift of the comments, and all bills

for the granting of any such aid of ore supplies ought to be given for

the comments, and it is the undoubted and the sole right of the

comments to direct, limits, and a in such bills the ends, purposes,

limitations, and qualifications of such grants which ought not to be

altered by the House of Lords. It is clear, as I said, that these tax

credit payments are made out of the supply raised by taxation, and that

the other places have decided that the tax credit act should be amended

in terms of the approved draft. I am clearly of opinion that a failure of

the bar on this House to approve the draft of this instrument would be a

breach of the fundamental privileges of the elected chamber. It may be

asked, why is the approval of this house required? I believe that it is

as a courtesy to the house, just as the house is asked to agree to the

passing of money bills to becoming acts of Parliament. The house never

seeks to delay them, as the house is obliged to respect the financial

privileges of the elected chamber, and how it views with these matters,

and it should view this particular matter in the same way. To decline

to give up approve this draft, or to decline to review it until certain

conditions are met, is a refusal to accept as a decision of the elected

house on a matter of financial privilege is the final authority for

it. It has to be noted that this is a matter of the privilege of elected

chamber, not of the government. What the motion that had been put forward

does, is to... LAUGHTER a refusal to accept the decision of the elected

house on a matter of a financial a privilege, and that is what this

amounts to, and has to be noted that this is the privilege of the elected

chamber, not of the government. I want to say that the amendment

proposed by the right Reverend, and I will gladly get it right this

time, is entirely in accordance with the arrangements in this house, and

with the financial privileges of the House of Commons. Therefore, from

the point of view from the powers of this house, the motions that have

been put forward... I believe that what the leader said in opening that

considering the detail of this... The conventions to which he refers,

going back to the 17th century, are so uncertain that the conservative

party in 1908, defeated the budget, in which he sought to give money to

the poor people of this country, and does he not agree that the 1911 act

set out a mechanism whereby the Speaker, would certify, that a money

bill was a money bill. And that would remove from us, our powers of

consideration. To -- is he not going back to an argument that failed over

a hundred years ago? Not at all. I am saying what is the present

practice, according to... In relation to matters of financial

privileged. It is not a matter of the conventions of this house, it is

a matter of the rights of the other place in this matter, and in my

clear submission, this is, in fact, challenging the final authority of

the elected house, in a matter of financial privilege. And it is true

that the Liberal Democrats, at least I suck pose it was the Liberal

party, explored this, and found it necessary to take further action to

ensure that the practice should be built up in the 17th century, and it

applied in the 20th century, and beyond, and of course it put in

place mechanisms, to prevent the financial privileges being in any

way transgressed again. My Lord, I ask... I'm grateful for him giving

way. To ask how he feels that there is an amendment on the Mendel, for

passing Wessels -- legislation that will affect hundreds of thousands of

people? Is that it the arrangement that is proposed, the tax credit

act, which is passed by the labour government in 2002. It is thought to

be the right way to do this particular thing, with what the

Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, is to follow that. And I would

suggest necessary consequences for that, that the Commons or labour

government should use a different procedure, in order to secure the

financial privilege of the House of Commons. This procedure has been

laid down, and the tax credits act, which is the main statutory in this

matter, and for the government to do anything other than use that

particular course, would seem to be offensive to the way in which this

system was set up. And I am saying to your lordships is that in light

of what the leader of houses said, about the attitude of the Chancellor

of the Exchequer, when more detailed material is available, it is a

matter of considerable consolation to me in light of what the right

Reverend has said. As I said your lordships, I believe that is the

safest way to secure what is asked for by a member of your lordships.

First, this represents a lamentable example for not evidence based

procedures. The victims of which are going to suffer greatly, and

secondly, the arguments used to justify the policy, with reference

to other policy changes, and how people could or even should work

harder, betrays a lack of understanding of policy, and of

people's lives. In his letter to the financial Secretary, the Social

Security advisor recommitted to criticise the scant evidence to

support the policy changes. It does not encourage the government to make

available to Parliament, more detailed information, that clearly

explains the changes and potential impacts, to ensure that they can be

subject to effective scrutiny, with respect to the Noble Lord, the sack

clearly believed that it is possible to provide such an -- information

something the advice was ignored. Leading to the Secretary legislation

committee to exert -- contained minimal information. My Lord,

getting an impact assessment out of the government, could be like

pulling teeth. That which finally emerges is a travesty. Much of it

simply repeats repetitive repetitively, the rationale behind

the policy. It certainly does not provide the information about

potential impacts that is thought. There is no information on the

impact of such on different groups affected, including the Celtic

group, which we have heard, cannot benefit from an increase in the

minimum wage. The information about the impact and protecting groups, is

simply laughable. And when I asked in a written question of how many

receipt of care is allowed, are also... Memorable, return the

information could only be provided at disproportionate cost. But I know

here in the UK, people are very worried about the likely impact on

all carriers receiving working tax credit. In the letter accompanying

the impact assessment, the Chancellor excuse the delay on the

grounds that the government does not usually published this for statutory

instruments at this time, my Lord, I find this statement to be revealing,

and it suggest that the government made no attempt to assess the impact

before going ahead with such significant cuts. But it sees and I

ate as a tick box at the side, to pacify pesky parliamentary

committees, surely, given the Prime minister's pledge at the

conference, an all-out assault on poverty, the government would want

to know the impact on -- poverty. But no, it was left for Resolution

Foundation, to point out that there could be an additional 200,000

children falling into poverty next year, rising to 600,000 by 2020,

with other summer budget measures have to take into effect. Shortly,

the government that is promised to apply the family test, to every

measure, would want to know the impact on low income families. A

point made by Heidi Alan, and her passionate maiden speech,

demolishing her own government's policy, and shortly, a government

that goes on calls about making work pay, would want to know the impact

on low paid workers. But we had to look at another department for that.

The government appears to be contracting out genuine assessment

of impact, to the voluntary sector. But of course, that is an assessment

after, rather than as part of the policymaking process. That is one

reason why it is so important that your lordships House asks the

government to think again, in light of the evidence is emerged the

damaging impact the cuts will have. My Lord, I'm grateful to all of

those organizations, who have exposed by the overall policy

package that the government constantly sites, does not amount an

adequate policy. Particularly in the case of parents who will be

disproportionately affected according to gingerbread. And a key

reason why the overall package does not provide adequate protection, is

that with the exception of child care, it applies only to a very

limited age range, the other policies, the increase in the

minimum wage, and in personal tax allowances, less welcome, because it

is wasteful. They cannot take account of the presence of

children. A point made by my noble friend. All the talk about tax

credits, such as those with no pay, ignores the fact that child tax

credits were introduced primarily as a child poverty measure. My Lord,

wages cannot take account of the presence of children. That was one

reason why fell a allowance was introduced. White in increase --

family. Which is currently frozen, provide more effective mitigation,

and further increases in tax allowances. Finally, according to

the health Secretary, the cuts are intended to set a very important

cultural signal, about hard work. The receipt of tax credits is

somehow incompatible with independent, self respect, and

dignity. It does not appear to understand that reducing the income

threshold and increasing the rate, penalizes what he calls hard work,

and likewise, the work and pensions secretary suggested that the problem

can be solved, if those hardest hit are encouraged to work a few extra

hours. But even if extra hours were feasible, and available, it is a

game from doing so, will be reduced by the very changes that they are

supposed to mitigate every the children's Society points out that

every extra ?1 and wages could provide a net increase of only 3p

for those receiving benefits, and only 20p for those not. And what

about those with family responsibilities? Particularly

parents from working extra hours would impact negatively on their

family's lights. -- lies. This legislation does not stand up to

scrutiny. The policymaking process for which it has emerged this cannot

stand up to scrutiny. It is not, my noble Lords, no one will bear the

cost of stopping the low-paid workers who e-mailed to say that he

is very scared about he will managed -- managed next year. That'll be

hundreds of thousands of children pushed into poverty, my lord, I

believe we have a duty to defend them and fellow citizens.

believe we have a duty to defend them and fellow citizens That

suggests that given the very last number of noble Lords who want to

their contributions as briefing to the point, so we can get as many in,

and we can go round the houses we are doing, it will help, I think,

the sense of balance, and our debate, which noble Lords will

appreciate, and I hope that they will excuse me, because normally

they would take precedence, and they have indicated another member, and

she might speak next. I hope you understand why I wish to do so.

Might job is to offer my best expertise, to help the government to

understand the consequences of legislation for statutory

instruments. That is just what I'm going to offer now. Working tax

credits to provide an unprecedented and effective point. For disabled

people, who faced the greatest barriers, proposes to know working

tax credits, and the point to be raised to 48p.

For directories and, broad disability, look to their

impairments to link increase their working hours, or to offset their

losses. Disabled people are more likely to be in low-paid positions.

Than non-disabled people. Especially, my lord, people with

learning disabilities. My limits, I am not aware of the impact

assessment, which evaluated this specific disability, and I fear that

this incentivizes disabled people for who a very difficult positions.

The benefits into work, and there is little doubt that this will

completely impact on the government's other policies, which

is to help the disability employment gap, and it does not make sense. And

do not forget that this is currently running at over 30%. Therefore,

leading and this will inevitably lead to... Health and social care.

What is the inevitable resort of unemployment and disabled people.

Also, we cannot look at working tax credits. We are promised to join the

government, but I'm not aware of any transports that the government's

analysis of the cumulative impact of this regulation, on working disabled

people to offer... Where is the Department of Health? Many working

disabled people are affected by this. And they are also suffering

from cuts to their social care and support, the closure of the

Independent living fun, and the changes in access to work. It

affects, my Lord, the government is making employment less likely for

people with these needs than not. And they know that this is not their

intention. So, I'm hoping that this little bit of detail and reality and

evidence will help us to reflect and maybe the government might change

its mind. I do not know. But I'm deeply worried about this number of

people that will be affected and hit by this, and that will not deliver

the government's own policy. My Lords, I wish to support the

amendment to the motion as table by the right Reverend, in the hope that

it will indeed give space for further reflection, and

reconsideration of the tax credit proposals. As I believe it will do.

And has some potential to. Firstly, I went to brick cord my appreciation

in recent months foreign members of the government, that implied hard

work, and some recognition on the National Minimum Wage. It is this,

rather than buttressing from the state, that should provide the

income of working people. It follows from this, my lords, rising wages

and not least from the government's own proposals, on a national living

wage. Will of their own accord reduced the use of tax credits, in

due course. Without the introduction of regulations in the foreign

office. My Lords, it is my calling and privilege to say that this

covers most of south London, and East Surrey, and indeed, I am hoping

several of your lordships living with Bennett, it is a large and

populous area, encompassing both significant populations of open

deprivation, alongside a very considerable wealth. The

unsustainable pressures in which the rental market, as well as rapidly

rising house prices, already threatening the balance of many

communities, and I feel the introductory of these regulations

that push a significant number of hard-working people are learning

families to breaking point. A reduction in the threshold for

credits are withdrawn, to families earning from ?6,430 to 3850, is a

very dramatic change, which will adversely affect all but the poorest

members of the communities we serve. Families that strive, struggle,

aspire, and hope to advance their well-being will be thrown back since

you have the sort of margin between income and expenditure, that

conclusion them from the bloat that is coming. And the London Borough of

Suffolk alone, whose 50th anniversary is being commemorated

this past weekend, it is estimated that some 20,000 families are in

receipt of tax credits. And it is further estimated that even making

allowance for the mitigating factors being introduced by the government,

some 4000 will remain worse off by the changes. That is just one London

Borough, my Lords. My Lords, this sort of wage Wright doubled mitigate

this, and the extra hours worked to catch up will be taken away by other

benefits, even if there were other benefits and hours in the day. The

allowances, which benefits a far wider group of people, including

members of the chamber, will not compensate for the shortfall. By

these regulations, we are in fact asking parents to make their

children bear a significant adjustment in their economic

circumstances. And adjustment, some children will not understand, which

in itself, will be an added stress to the families. My Lord, we risk

stripping other citizens of their dignity by these provisions, even

though the government stated an intention with the home range of

economic and fiscal measures, intending to do the opposite. My

Lords, we should take this opportunity to cancel her Majesty's

government, not to seek to add to the burden, but for those working

hard for their families, and to reconsider in detail the impact of

these regulations, and the need for more fully worked out transitional

arrangements. I therefore support this as tabled by the right

Reverend. But I just asked him why, if he believes this will cause such

difficulty, and such distress to so many children, in our community and

their parents, why he is telling us to back this motion? I was persuaded

by listening to the Noble Lord and the other day explaining the

constitutional differences that that exists between two chambers. My

Lords, there seem to be two plans to this constitutional crisis. And that

is what I would like to address. The first is that this House should not

back down. And certainly not under the House of Commons. There is no

standing down, and the Parliament act are silent on the prime Mary

comments, over statutory instruments. This is taking a very

big step, but the good thing there, even if it is rather overthrown, and

in this house, we do not look at this so much as that the companion

to standing orders, and that is where we find that this house has a

benefited right, over statutory incomes. If an instrument is not

approved by this house, there is nothing to stop the government from

being another instrument that those houses, will change immediately. It

is time we stopped being bullied over how we can centre statutory

instruments. The other plan, the so-called constitutional crisis,

involves the privacy of the House of Commons, and actual matters, and

here I echo what the noble Baroness has said. The parent act from which

this instrument comes was not considered as among those, and if

this house would want to debate this at all, which it is, then it is

entitled to prove or on approved it, it is not an impression of courtesy,

this is what we do. This is what Parliament as agreed, and we will

not be complaining all those affected by this measure, and we

simply... Turned our backs to the wall, saying that it was none of our

business. At the government had wanted to revolt such a situation,

then one earth did they wanted to reduce a very short tax credits

amendments Bill? Was none of this on measure. At this house turned back,

the comments would have voted for natural privilege, and that would be

that. But we might have debated how to do -- tweak such a bill, which

would help all those conservative members, just for that. And if the

bill route had been taken, we might have had much more impact

assessment, which would help those low-paid workers effective, when the

tax credit changes happen next April, instead of saying that by

2020, they may not be... We surely know that after all the thousands of

employers in our country will pay the new living wage immediately, and

the numbers of the workers want to make up the shortfall. The

government will decide that they can make a very controversial change, by

and on a metal bowl statutory instrument, and then passing it by

telling us that we can have a constitutional crisis. Surely, it is

quite unacceptable, and we should stand up to what we believe to be

wrong or right. It is the spirit to be

my Lords, I suspected that I'm not the only ONE on this side of the

House, who feels torn, because the constitutional position which I'm

open, has said Adderall... It is very clear. Are matters of the

prerogative of the other place, of the elected chamber, and this is

undoubtedly a budgetary matter, however it is chosen topic what is

the purpose? The purpose is to help reduce the budget deficit, that

everybody has agreed to. I apologise for giving way, but he seems to him

flying that the tax credits that shoe, which the House said, will be

certified privilege, is he aware that the legislation in 2002,

itself, was not subject to financial privilege, and it is rather hard to

argue this, from that legislation. I hate back to the noble lady, the

Constitution is more important than nit-picking. This is a budgetary

matter... Does he think that the clock of the parliament was knit

picking, when he told my noble friend at the statutory instruments

are not covered by financial privilege? Unequivocally from

elsewhere. The point is that this was a budgetary matter, and

budgetary matters are the prerogative of the elected House.

And that is a most important constitutional principle, this was

designed to reduce the budget deficit, which everybody agrees has

to be eliminated, on all sides, by something like four and a half

billion pounds, and this is clear that this is the Chancellor of the

Exchequer, whichever side you may be on, and so that is the

constitutional position. I am not going to elaborate, so that is

clear. I believe there are aspects of this measure which we to be

reconsidered, and indeed changed. The... I think the right Honorable

George Osborne Chancellor of the Exchequer, made it clear that he was

going to be getting a lot of the savings over to the great from the

welfare budget, and this tax credit, which has eluded enormously, is a

large part of the budget. I think that is absolutely fair, but the

question is the particular instance of this package in the bill. And,

what concerns me is not that there are high marginal rates of tax,

which are trained to incidentally, that is the Kate -- case we all need

to look at. It is absurd to say that these assessed abilities can never

be reduced. But nevertheless, there are those tax credit systems at

work, that rise surprisingly high, but the scale. But here, the great

harm, or any great deal of harm is that the lowest end of the scale.

That is what needs to be looked at your. That is what concerns me. I

think it is perfectly possible to take more from the operand of the

tax credit scale, and less from the lower end of the tax credit scale. I

heard my noble friend, the Leader of the House, say that the Chancellor

would listen to this debate. I would be surprised if you were to say that

the Chancellor would not listen to this debate. Of course he would

listen to this, but it is not just this debate that is required, it is

change that is required. And I very much acknowledge that my noble

friend when he winds up indicates that there is going to be changed,

but we do not know what, but we will indicate that it is going to change,

and I must say that I intend to support the amendment in the name of

the right Reverend. He listens very carefully to the

contribution of the former Chancellor, Lord Lawson. His support

for what appears to be the Frank Field amendment should be taken

seriously. The leader can call on all of the constitutional arguments

that she can muster in support of the government, as indeed Ken the

Noble Lord came in the issue of financial privilege. All of those

arguments claiming to insignificance when compared to the greater

argument, the argument that the general public, millions of people

outside of this house are going to pay. That being, statements given

during the course of the general elections solemn undertakings given

by cabinet ministers to the British people on what the attitude would be

to tax credits. In the case of Mr golf, who gave the undertaking that

there would be no cut in tax credits, which he would be unable to

substantiate in any agreement, but what he said on television in the

interview, and in particular Mr Cameron, who deliberately misled the

British public. The British public would regard what he said now as a

lie. A light to win a general election. -- a lie. The British

public are fed up with politicians who tell lies on that scale. It

exceeded the misleading of the public in the case of the Liberal

Democrats fees, but at least they didn't know what was going to come

after the election. In this particular case, Mr Cameron didn't

know, and they set out to avoid revealing the fact by hiding behind

this statement that they would have to make substantial cuts. I believe

that those allies tromp all of the constitutional niceties. Weatherbee

of financial privilege, or the fatality of amendments. On that

basis I support the notion on the table, and the amended notion this

evening. The public cannot take this scale of line. MyPoints briefly. I

don't want anything that I say to be taken as implying a lack of sympathy

with the concerns of those who have spoken about the effects of the

government's policy. Like other peers, I have had moving e-mails

from many such people who expect to lose benefit to the statutory

instrument. I want to confine myself, however, to the

constitutional issue. I usually agree with the noble lady lady

Thomas about statutory instrument. Is a rare event that the government

is defeated on a statutory instrument. It has only happened

five times since the war. That does not mean that the house could not do

it. A combination here is that this is a statutory instrument about a

budgetary matter, which is central to the government's fiscal policy.

It is that combination that is unprecedented, and why I think that

it would be beyond the taxes up to two full power to defeat the

government today. To amend the coming into the standing orders and

proceeds to the proceeding House of Lords, which says that the House has

resolved that this house reserves its unfettered freedom to vote on

any subordinate legislation submitted for its legislation. Is

this not subordinate legislation from submitted for our legislation?

What I am saying is that the combination of statutory instruments

and the fiscal significance of this one are what makes it special. Is

the case that, none since 1911, has a government been challenged on a

matter of this starch. That establishes what the constitutional

reaches of the house implies. The Noble Lord that says no government

has been challenged on matters of this it's sort since 1911. 2008, in

July, there was a debate in this house on a statutory instrument. The

house came to the conclusion, it voted, there was a discussion, it

voted against the government and voted down the government's and

suggestion. Insisted that any attempt by the government to raise

national insurance had to be done by way of primary legislation, and not

statutory. Was that not also the case, in which a government was

trying to pursue its financial and fiscal policies, among which the

opposition voted it down and said that they couldn't do a bite

statutory instrument and had to do it by legislation? I will not

contest that, which I have not myself considered. The amendment of

the noble lady is transparently a fatal motion. She agrees with that,

and in my view is outside of your Lordship's constitutional role. I

note that my noble friend agrees with that view. The amendments of

the noble lady Baroness Hollis, and the lady raise a more subtle issue.

They are not fatal. They seek to do for our consideration of the

statutory instrument until the government has done certain things

specified in the amendments. These include surrendering some of the

savings which would be achieved by this measure. Who they are still

blocking amendments. I can best demonstrate that as follows. What

happens if the government refuses to do what the amendments demand? Will

your chips then, refused to consider the statutory instruments for ever?

In that case, these amendments blocked the statutory instrument

indefinitely. This, in my view, is not within... My Lord, may I point

out that the House of Commons has a very similar request before the

house for Thursday. That is to say, they want also more information.

Conservative MP's do not feel that they have gotten enough information

to understand the full applications of these regulations. If the House

of Commons votes for more information, in other words don't go

ahead until we know what is going on, would the Noble Lord then agreed

that actually that should be provided not only for the House of

Lords, but for the House of Commons? When the comments ask for more

information it should be provided. But the House of Commons has passed

the statutory instrument, and they cannot go back on that. Now, the

issue is whether the House of Lords should pass it. I believe that

however much sympathy of the house should have for the objectives of

those who would move these amendments, it would be a

constitutional infringement of great gravity to pass the first three of

them. It would be wrong on three counts. First, this is a budgetary

matter, and it may be up well for matter as well but it's certainly a

welfare matter -- it is crucial second, that was explosives in the

manifesto on which the government was elected only a short time ago.

Third, the statutory instrument has been passed by the House of Commons

which has that responsibility in our constitutional arrangement. It has

been passed not once, but three times. I cannot find myself

persuaded... I'm sorry. He is not addressing the house, and that he is

not addressing his experience... I have committed a constitutional

impropriety. I don't understand the point that the Noble Lord is making.

I am not persuaded by the noble Baroness's argument that this

house... I worked in many rules, giving advice, and I know that after

this debate there will be many members of the public who ask what

on earth was going on in the house? Could the Noble Lord just answer the

question, if the House of Lords were today to amend or vote down this

statutory instrument, could the government in the comments bring

back a 1-word change statutory instrument within the next few days?

Would he care to comment? I listened very respectfully who used an

expression I cannot understand. Could a Lord Butler explained why it

Lord Mackay thought that it would be offensive that the government would

choose to bring this item forward in primary legislation? I didn't

understand the reasoning, and I'm sure Lord Butler does. My Lords, it

is unfair if I may say so for the noble lady to ask me to interpret

someone else's statements. I would give the answer that I was going to

give about the point made by my noble friend. I can't be persuaded

that this house would be failing in its democratic duty if we didn't

block this statutory instrument so that the House of Commons could have

yet one more debate on it. It has had three already. Order! I am sorry

to intervene, but just an observation. The director for the

Institute for Government, Peter Riddle, who is greatly respected

make the following point. It is long, but I want to read it. I said

do the short version. " The promo act of 1911 and 1949... Do not apply

to secondary legislation. Order! The house was listening to the Noble

Lord Lord Butler. I have been a frustrated to put my points briefly.

Let me make one final point. There have been many times in the past

when there has been an oppositional majority in your Lordship's house.

Particularly when there has been a Labour government. There have been

many, many occasions when the opposition has wanted to overturn

the government on a fiscal matter. It hasn't happened, and in these

cases the opposition recognising the conventions, has exercised

self-restraint. It has been a slip, and has stayed within the

constitutional conventions. I believe that the house should do so

today. My Lords, and responds immediately to what the Lord has

said. In July 2008, in more detail, it was a fiscal matter. It was

government policy, no doubt, and there was no doubt that what this

house demanded that the government should give it up. This house

insisted that what the government wanted to do could only be done by

primary legislation and not by a statutory instrument. By Lord, and

has been before the House before, and house has before. It seems to me

that there are three major issues that this house has got to consider

today. Firstly, whether not financial privilege applies, the

effects of the way in which it has proceeded, and third whether any

amends are favourable. Let's start with a constitutional one. I totally

reject the statutory instrument made by the Chancellor, to postpone this

resolution would be contrary to financial understandings that exist

between the two housings -- houses. That is not justified, and I totally

reject it. The government could have avoided these constitutional

problems if they wanted to. They chose to legislate with this matter

in primary rather than secondary legislation. When you open them to

include these proposals in the finance Bill? Alternatively, they

could have legislated with a sure and separate bill. They chose, a

government choice, to do it by secondary legislation. That

inevitably curtailed debate here and in the House of Commons particularly

in the country. I accept that his been doubt that within a separate

place. Inevitably the national discussion been truncated. It has

been truncated to the point of extinction. There has been no

consultation, there's been no consultation on measures to

alleviate the burden the poor, is quite the contrary. None of these

issues have been even discussed. We don't know what, if any transitional

measures the government might have in mind. The government had not

voted for the general election. Considerable efforts to conceal the

fact that this was the government's intention when they got reelected --

Minister after Minister appeared before the television cameras saying

no, no, no, there will be no tax credits. We will tell you what it

will be eventually. No word in the conservative manifesto. We are told

that in that situation, this house willy-nilly, has got to accept what

the government says. What the government are asking us to do is

not acceptable. He has set out an alternative policy

which the government might have followed. It did not. We are not

dealing with the alternative politic -- policy, we are dealing with what

actually happened to. What he is saying that that's what the

government hasn't seen and done is that they are doing something they

do he doesn't like. It not alter the fact that this is a met money

matter, and he is seeking this house to overturn a majority in the

Commons decision on a money matter. If I may ask, how should I interpret

the point of order made on the 21st of October in the other place. ,

959. On a point of order, generations of your predecessors

defended the privileges of this house, and the greatest privileges

of all is the principle of no taxation without representation. We

have had a lively debate yesterday on tax credits, and many of us would

like to see some movement from the government. Surely it is the elected

representatives of the people who decide on tax and spending. The

Speaker responded that "I understand entirely, and my own feeling from

the chair is that the other place can look after its self. We also can

and will look after ourselves. " I think it would be a more dignified

for the chair not to be drawn into a public spat. In the final analysis,

both houses know the factual positions, and the deposition is

what it is. Long-standing. I am not qualified to what is in the mind of

Mr Lee's. To expect me to be able to do that -- of course they chose to

do it. Why? They chose to do it because they cut off discussion. It

meant that they were not accountable By Lords, there was a convention

that we didn't in fact vote against a statutory instruments. We do not

turn them down. By doing it that way, the government thought that

they would... Could they have done it that way

because of the act said that they had to do it that way? Would that

not be a more proper judgement of what the government did? The act

gave them the power to do it, DAX did not compel them to do it. If

they wanted to do it by parliament could have been done way. In the

normal way, financial privilege would have applied and none of this

nonsense would have been created. I have to say, the reason that the

government chose to legislate in this way because it was bound to

create conflict. That was the point of the exercise. I want to say a

word about disability 2008. -- this bill. This house limited the power

of the local government to raise the upper threshold so that it could

only be done through primary legislation. These two cases are

almost identical. In each case the government were trying to order tax

provisions by statutory regulation. In each case this house was standing

in its way, and I don't see any real difference between to. The

difference between the two, is that 2008... I think that is an important

that he is referring to a particular previous case, and is doing so in a

way that I do not believe is accurate, because of the examples

that he is citing was it to appease a primary legislation. It was not to

a statutory instrument. It was not statutory instrument, it was a piece

of primary legislation. An amendment was properly tabled to that piece of

primary legislation in this house. This House voted on it. This house

then sent the bill back to the place in a normal way, and the House of

Commons decided that it would invoke financial privilege. That was the

end of the matter. Is wrong for the Noble Lord to draw direct

comparisons in the way that is doing. The reason why, my Lords, is

that when asked about the relevance of the 19 love acts, it is quite

clear that secondary deflation is not covered by some of the

conventions that have been raised in debate during this house. What is at

risk here is the financial primacy of the comments. I hear what she

said, but to this I had to say as far as the financial privileges as

the House of Commons is concerned. If this house

it does not mean that it is dead. My lord, it needs that it is delayed

and implementation of it is delayed. That is probably accepted by most

people, that is not a knapsack on this resolution and. At the house

were to do that... I am not in favour of voting for the liberal

Democrat amendment, because I don't think that voting for statutory

instruments is a good thing for this house to do. I don't think I've ever

done it. I do think that a motion to postpone it until the other house

has a chance to look at it in the light of the evidence that has now

risen, that makes sense. I hope very much that when it comes down to it

that is what happens. My Lords, I want to repeat a few words that he

has just said. I have been listening to this debate, and I listened to

his argument. He persuaded me that the motion of describing the

legislation would raise all kinds of constituent matters. He do to

baronesses are declining to consider the draft legislation. You are tying

our hands, because when they produced this legislation we will

have no choice but to approve the legislation. I for one think that if

the Chancellor is... We are giving him advice. If we are giving him

advice he is going to take it. I for one think that the baronesses

motions are not fatal, they are simply delaying. Might noble friend,

the prelate, once the government to consult on relations. Well, it is a

question of trust. If you are not going to have the facts right before

you before you approve this particular is legislation, you'd be

forgetting your legislative responsibilities. If you are

revising in the chamber, surely you must do it. They may even be glad

that that fact have been bandied around have become clear, and

they're not that important. For me, like Baroness Hollis, I think that

she outlined clearly consequences of this hasty way of reducing and

cutting the stacks credits. The people are going to suffer most, and

those who up to now who want those tax credits in work and imagine

managing to get things in order. That is not good. By introducing a

living wage. At first, which I trusted to be calibrated soon by the

living wage condition. What is my basis for saying this? You all know

that two years ago I chaired a commission that brought together

people from business, industry, society, I'm how we could actually a

to create a brilliant way of dealing with this particular difficulty. How

can we tackle this? We looked closely and objectively at the cost

of living wage, and let me give you the evidence that is in the report.

The evidence pointed that the living wage is good for employees,

business, the economy, and if the local people. Employers are already

adopting a range policy and our listing thousands of people out of

working policy -- poverty. They're claiming tax credits, and they could

gain up to four billion a year in a increased tax revenues. That is a

much neater way of doing it. Businesses are reporting

productivity increases improvement in the area. The truth is that you

and I lose out on... Billions of pounds are being spent every year

when opponent finances are tight. Where inequality grows, economics

was not always divorced from our own ethical considerations. Adam Smith,

the father of modern economics, was a professor of moral philosophy. To

him and two other philosophers, it seemed to me that the issue that

we are facing here is not that economies are divided from wars at

ethics, but that the decisions that we take are affected by the men and

women who want to get out of poverty, want to get out of

depending on tax credits, but actually doing it properly and

fairly. Britain has struggled through challenging times. I hope

that the work that is being done by government, business done and the

people of the UK will take a huge step forward. The minimum wage, when

introduced, did not go far enough. Let me give you some research, which

to me seems to suggest that you as a legislative body have considered

delaying so that defects may be brought up. There has been a rising

demand for constituent credit. Many report their need to borrow. This

makes credit month -- worsen the credit winter months. Do want people

who are depending on credits to beat her into the loan sharks of this

country? Britain is at risk of becoming a place where the have and

have-nots have their own woes, when the... I want to listen more, and I

hope that this decision to delay ties our hands, allows us a chance

to take advice, and almost we are saying we pass it and that we agree

with it. The 20 13th summit but are, and

actually says that yes, over 70 years, there's something going on,

but many low-income households are still much worse off than in 2008,

leaving them struggling to make ends meet, rely on benefits, and for me

this means that poverty wages... The government is about deficit

reduction, and one way will not actually leave men or women in the

hands of loan sharks. My lords, Dunn my lords, I just to point to bring

in. First, it was my proposals in the Social Security legislation of

1986 which led to the reduction of tax credit, which was a success to

keep Joseph's family Sock, and of course the former one of tax

credits. Then of course, it became a Treasury matter, and went to tax

credits. But obviously, I've got us a considerable sympathy with the

general case that is being put in the debate. Second, I was about six

years secretary of health and Social Security, and as such, no one's idea

of natural support of the Treasury, and all their schemes. ... LAUGHTER

Various chances and chief secretaries, might do that. Perhaps

I could add just in parentheses in this heated debate, throughout my

time that while I was doing Social Security, my shadow Minister who

died last week, we did not agree on very much, but he was a very

honourable and totally sincere man, and he will be very much missed. My

lords,... My lords, I spent three months every year debating the

Treasury with proposals that they have put forward, and they put

forward on my budget. One counterargument I never used was

that the specific cost cutting measures, not in the manifesto,

frankly I have a lot of trouble keeping the Treasury to recognise

what was in the manifesto. Every government introduces measures not

contained in the manifesto, and the last thing I did was to introduce

the dock labour scheme, and there was not a word of that in the

manifesto. Back in my old Social Security death, under pressure from

the Treasury, that was the whole basis of measuring inflation and the

cost of well over ?1 billion. The reduction in benefits bending will

always be unpopular. I found that in the Cabinet, everyone was in favour

of the general argument that when it came to the specific, they always

said please, not that way. And frankly, I have decided that I think

the conservative manifesto in 2015, spelled out what is intended with

more clarity in this area, then any manifesto I can remember on either

side. The government said in words, that they would have -- find ?12

billion from welfare savings, and that is... Hang on. Leverages finish

my point. That is a good deal, more specific than any manifesto I had

anything to do it, myself, and indeed any manifesto which I ever

came across. I give way. Does he think it was right then for Mr

Cameron to rule out tax credit cuts at the time of the general election

to think he was right to do so? I think we have been around this

before, and the Noble Lord has made this point several times, but more

to the point, and has not considered now three times in the House of

Commons, and has been rejected, in fact, I think he was talking but

considering child tax credit, not the whole web. And what the

manifesto Alston made clear in words that the pension ratings would be

protected in other words, that area of the retirement would be fenced. I

don't think there was any controversy about that. But, but

obviously that meant is that I bring fencing pensioners benefits, they

now had the field of very existentially with a ?12 billion

cuts followed. Not everyone will agree with that, and indeed, my

major reason for introducing family credit was concerned for low income

working families with children, but even then it was clear that what was

happening was that pensioners were increasing in that. And that was not

actually being put forward by the low income families. But, what I do

say is that I do not think that anyone can imagine how spending on

tax credits was to escalate in the way that it did. Tax credits are

being tripled in the ten years up until 2010, and was estimated to be

about ?13 billion a year. Doubt was a long way from the original game.

But I accept, my lords, that none of this was the fault of the families

who are struggling to make ends meet, often in very difficult

circumstances. I totally accept and agree with that. I therefore welcome

the measures of the Leader of the House, where she said that these

matters would now be cleared, and again, I would hope that when they

are, we can find room to look particularly at the petition of

families with children, and that it seems to be is a particular

priority. And the emotion is precisely upon this. Were the

government to do this or not, and this is the point, it is frankly a

matter... Who is asked on this, and other financial matters, that the

House of Commons and not to others. The common sense position,... I will

give weight. My lord, I hate to interrupt, but he said clearly that

the leader had talked the House that these measures would be considered.

Now I think I listened quite naturally to all of this, and I'm

not sure I heard that. I'm very happy to be corrected. I give that

to the leader of to put those into specific words, but I do not think

that is not an unfair representation of what she said. We are, my lords,

the unelected House, the other place is the elected one. Measure has

Artie been voted, on twice, if not three times, and we cannot have this

trying to impose its will on ?500 of savings to be in if I can say if

there's one thing to the members of the House of Commons, who are here,

I do not remember when we were ordered in the House of Commons

together, and I'm saying we must give more financial power over what

happens over the House of Lords. I do not remember at any stage of that

point being made, and I do not remember that being made by anyone

in any one party, on this particular position. I think a certain degree

of humility are in order. My lords,... Does this not show that

our powers of statutory instruments are far too drastic? As was pointed

out and report on conventions, and it would be bad if we gave up the

power to accept or reject a statutory instrument in exchange for

maybe two amendments, which would deal with Noble Lord, Lord Lawson's

point, we could not oppose it. There may be a lifeboat out of this, if we

could actually get something out of it, in the way we're dealing with

secondary legislation, with all of this in the future? I think that is

something that we can consider for the future, and on first hearing,

sounds like an attractive proposition. But we are considering

what we're now, and not for the future. If I may make this last

point. In spite of some of the criticism, and the attack, now being

directed at this house, it is my view that this house carries out a

very valuable function, a serious function, and the members I meet

your day by day are hard-working, not just on the floor of the House,

but in select committees. I do think we need to recognise one

common-sense thing. Long as this is an appointed house, we must accept a

limitation on our powers, particularly in financial properties

Gabi to ignore those limitations, that is not in the interest and not

in the interest in the House of Lords, and it is not in the interest

of the public. It cannot be justified, and that is why I will be

voting against against these amendments. My lords,... My lords, I

just rise to said that we have been going at this now for well over two

and a half hours, and many points, and there have been strong arguments

on each side of the argument. And many points have been made on the

speeches which have not only been lengthy, but mighty. I find it

difficult to conceive that there are any more arguments that could be

deployed LAUGHTER On either side of the argument, as I

would submit that it... We have reached the point where we need to

cut to the point, where we make up our minds, and it is time to come to

a conclusion. My lords, I accept the point of the Noble Lord, but if I

may I think I have one or two points that have not been made before, and

if the House would indulge me, I would be grateful for the

opportunity to do so. I will not go over the case against the

regulations and their current form, that has been argued powerfully

tonight from all benches, and the need for reconsideration, I think,

we could almost pass. The issue before us is whether it is

constitutionally appropriate for the House of Lords to use its most

potent, most well known weapon of delay. In respect of these

regulations. Very powerful speeches were made from bishops, and correct

that I'd just say that I'm delighted that the right Reverend is here for

today's debate, and I should either born or can soul, but it is not

always this. LAUGHTER However, I hope that the bench and

others will consider that it might be appropriate for the House to use

its powers of delay tonight, and I favour the motion in the name of the

noble lady. Because it gives us an alternative to eight fatal amendment

on a matter which I think is of high political importance. It gives us

the opportunity of delay, and asking the Commons and through than the

government, to think again. Now, the noble lady and the Leader of the

House, said when she introduced the debate, that she had seen the

Chancellor of the Exchequer today, and I think that the words are ever

used were that he would listen very carefully, to what was said in the

House today. I accept that. I have to say that having had the privilege

of being in both houses, that I think he will listen even more

carefully to what is said in the House of Commons, on Thursday. And I

would like him to have the opportunity to do that, so I have

asked myself whether the fact that this is innovative, in terms of...

Was something that we should therefore enjoy. My answer is no. If

we have the power to kill a statutory instrument and send it

back to base, then surely, we have the power to delay a statutory

instrument, and weight for that reconsideration. On the question of

whether this is being discussed in another place, absolutely I

understand that. Doesn't need consideration? Yes, I think it does.

And actually, my lords, every time we discuss an amendment bill that

has gone through the House of Commons, it is probably being voted

on three times. My second reading, the committee, and on the report.

That does not inhibit us the first time around, I'm saying will you

please look again. For me, the only question to make is the question of

financial privilege. And, I hesitate to cross swords with either Noble

Lord, or my noble friend, but I think this situation is not as

clear-cut as they set out. If this were a finance Bill, we would have

no part in. If it were a taxation as side, it would only go to the House

of Commons. But it is not. This is an essay under "ordinary

legislation." And under that, on this bill, this house considers

amendments and sends them to the House of Commons. The House of

Commons can then do what it likes to do. It can accept them, it can offer

a compromise, it can reject them, or it can invoke financial privilege.

But that is after this house has asked them to think again. I think

again that that is the best answer been an analogy with the Finance

Act. This is the statutory instrument that is under a piece of

welfare legislation, not under a finance Bill. To me,... I am very

grateful to the noble lady, but surely there is an analogy. There is

an analogy with finance bills, and finance bills to come to your

Lordship's house, but we pass them without amendment, because that is

the Constitutional convention. That is similar to what we're being asked

to do on the statutory instruments. I have to say to the Noble Lord

Butler, that the financial convention, and not has not stayed

absolutely the same for 300 years, the financial convention was that

this house did not think about the finance Bill, or indeed economic

measures. In 2000... In the year 2000, we set up the economic affairs

committee, the House of Commons went into freeform about encroachment on

financial privilege. Even more so, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown at

the time, was incandescent at the idea that there should be a

subcommittee looking at the finance Bill. In fact, those things happen,

and the world did not collapse, financial privilege, the right of

the comments to have the final say, was not impeded. To my mind, this is

the matter of very high and clear-cut politics, and it is a

matter of very nuanced constitutional significance. And

overall, I believe that the power of this house is most important power,

while leaving the last word to the other place, is to ask the other

place to think again. And I would urge the House to use that power

this evening. My lords, this has been quite an

extraordinary debate. I think it is unusual that your Lordship's house

finds itself at the centre of such a vivacious policy, and

constitutionally as it does today. It is also extraordinarily unusual

that for a matter that affects a Department of work and pensions, and

the Treasury, we have no Treasury or DW key ministers dressing your

Lordship's house today. I can understand why the government feels

more comfortable talking about constitutional issues on this

regard, than it does about the impact of this policy. That is

something that we all understand. But it was, again, extraordinary

when the noble lady, the Leader of the House, supported an amendment to

the government's policy, when she supported the Bishop's amendment. It

seems quite in the extraordinary. My lord, this is unprecedented today.

And, I think it is good to see the Noble Lord... Thank you for giving

way. I think it is important, because she has interpreted from

what I had said, incorrectly, I was very clear that the government does

not any amendment to its motion. What I said, was that the right

Reverend had brought forward his concerns in a way which we have

consistently with the conventions and proper roles of this house. I

think that is a bit of an angel's on a pinhead defence. I think when he

took on the role as the defence minister he said his job was not to

defend... My lords, we are being asked to prove the government's tax

credit. We are unable to do so today, and I think the reasons why

it had been very carefully laid out. There is a pernicious regulations,

but do enormous damage, because as sleep they could dramatically cut

the incomes of the poorest in society, and those that are working

hard, and they're doing at the government says is the right thing,

and they have now about 3 million people that will be affected by

these cuts. Like many other lords, I've had e-mails and letters from

those who are likely to be affected. From nurses, teachers, cleaners,

firefighters, people working hard trying to raise families, and they

are terrified of what lies before them. They do not know how they are

going to cope. And, I think the noble lady got e-mails about those

with disabilities, and have been moved into work and finding

something for them. Another baroness spoke today, and the House was

silent. We could heard a pin drop. As we heard these cuts will really

mean and the impact they will have on people across this country. And I

think when I say to the noble lady, the House was shocked and upset

about the information she provided today, but she also provided a way

through. And, the Noble Lord Lawson, said tax credits have increased at

?30 billion, and they have. That is part of their success, because

obviously we have seen the income support reduced as people went into

work, because they no longer need income support, but they were

receiving tax credits. That was a successive measures. As people moved

into work, bed tax credits to reflect their consensus, and liver

was then told the way out of poverty is work. That is because people in

tax credit have done. That have moved into work. It may be that...

To lose ?35 and ?30 a week from income. But for a lot of people out

there, that ?25 or ?35 a week is devastating. Indians not putting in

money for the heater when it gets cold. It means that those kinds of

choices that we should never place on families. My lords, it is a

highly contentious area, it is the policy that is important. Now,

having said that, I think there are conventional issues and

constitutional issues that noble Lords have raised, and I've given

some concern. I have to say to the Noble Lord, it would of course, as

we have word, normally be expected for measures of the major and

magnitude of this, to be introduced by primary legislation. As the

government bill, go through the stages, have the opportunity to be

debated, have amendments put to it, and voted on. And we have

opportunities to make revisions, these are the concerns that were

raised. One has to wonder why the government did not take that route,

because they can apply for financial privilege, but they've chosen to

deal with this measure for statutory instrument. My lords,... I'm sorry

to interrupt, but we did hear from the Noble Lord, McKay, that this

came as the result of the Secretary of legislation from the tax credits

legislation, introduced by another Lord. As a result, this is a natural

progression from that piece of legislation. So I find it difficult

to understand whether the noble lady could explain why that was wrong. I

can help certainly. In 2002, the legislation went through a lot of

amendments to tax credits legislation made by statutory

instrument, delegated direct -- legislation,... Could be applied.

But major policy changes would not normally be made in any sort of

things by this kind of regulation. Furthermore, as I said in my

intervention to Lawson, the legislation itself in 2002, was not

itself subject to financial privilege. Been out of the

government saying that statutory legislation follows off of that, and

should be subject to financial privilege. So I did just the

concerns that global has died noble lady has raised. I'm so sorry to

interrupt. But I think it is an important point for the House to

understand that the original bill in 2002 tax credits act, was not

certified as a money bill. Because it included changes to the

administration of the welfare system. Had just been about

financial measures that we are debating, then it would probably

have been certified as an amendment to be but it was the addition of

administration that made it not to be certified as that. I took those

two bills to this house, and I can tell the noble lady, such

considerations never arose. ... Aborted because certification of the

bill is done by the Speaker. She makes my point for me, that major

issues like this, major changes, are undertaken in primary legislation,

but let's leave that to one side as it may. Anybody out and the real

world listening to us talking today would wonder what on earth we are on

about, primary legislation, secondary legislation, affirmative

and negative, actually what really matters is the impact it has on

applying common sense approaches, and what is before us today. We know

as parliamentarians that at size are more normally use for that specific

detail, issues... Already approved and while. And, as I've said, we

very properly use that kind of normal upgrade and tax credits, and

I think a I made the point about 2002 earlier. This proposal before

us today is way beyond that normal kind of operate. It is a major

policy change, that the government was not promised not to do, but it

is a significant and major policy change. The route the government has

chosen is not the wrong route, but there are consequences of taking

that, if the government chose a truncated process, and said not to

have that for consideration of the House of Lords, at the same time

allows this house so the normal constitutional procedures of your

large APPLAUSE Debate and discuss it, and debate and discuss the kind

of amendments that would have before us today. This is not a fatal

amendment, whatever the noble labour -- noble lady and her colleagues may

think. We have made numerous references, she's shaking her head,

but the evidence is there. It is very clear-cut. Now, if the

government has gone down normally, we would not be here today. There

would have been for the debates in the House of Commons, with MPs, and

I think MPs from across the House who privately and publicly as well

admitted that this goes too far to quickly, and causes too much harm.

Now, I think the motion by Miss Hollis is what I refer to as a

common sense approach. That can really make a difference. It is in

line with what mode -- most people in this contrasting four, 60% of the

population today are reporting to work to see a U-turn, or changing

this policy, and that is what the noble lady is seeking to do. It

calls on this house to reject these proposals as they stand, and for

ministers to come back with proposals or schemes to protect

those already given tax credits for at least three years. That is all of

them. In the past, -- if this were to pass, what happens next? To take

his proposal away, and reconsider that. The government can afford to

proposals for the consideration. He iterated that it disappears into the

ether. The government is committed to doing something, and we can bring

back the proposals tear lordships House, because we're working on a

private legislation if you wish. If it felt to be anything back at all,

it would mean the government could not proceed with these cuts, and

they would have to take another route, and reconsider the policy. No

government is right all the time. Best rice -- and this house is right

to ask that and have it reconsider, think again, pause,...

Hill nobody can compel the government to do what the motion and

says. If the government does not than the House of Lords is refusing

to consider this hot this indefinitely. Government wants to do

nothing. The government would have us believe, what is hinted at, is

that it is happy to look at things again. I do not accept his argument

on that. What is clear that might noble friend's a minute would force

the government to look again. They would have to look at this issue

again and see where they can make significant changes to protect those

who are currently terrified of the cuts to their income. My Lords, I

think that this is not a fatal apartment, it does not block the

government plans, and allows them to reconsider. What we have is a

constitutional duty to scrutinize, examine, and challenge. When the

government has clearly got it wrong they must think again. We were

sparring partners at a distance today, and even those voting with

the government tonight say that I have grave concerns about the

policy, I want to see change. The honourable Lady has to know that

they are voting because she is trying to make this a constitutional

issue, not because they can't be tax credit. We are given an opportunity

to address the concerns that have been expressed by peers and members

of Parliament of both parties, including very senior members, and

including those on the bench behind her. I want to address the question

of why he the motion has not been put forward like the Liberal

Democrats have? I think that in policy terms there is little between

us on this issue. I think that it is significant that a fatal motion was

only tabled after government had threatened retaliation to -- if the

Lordship's House amended the cuts. I think they let the government off

the hook a bit because there are more talking about constitutional

issues. I think that the important issue before us today is that

looking at how we can protect people from what the government has

proposed. My one regret is that we love the focus to be off the issue

and onto the Constitution. The government, having won the ball in

the comments, quickly returned with new primary registration --

legislation to avoid consideration to your Lordship soused. We believe

that's is the only consideration that can lead to considerable

change. The clamour of voices call them to think again, and that is the

right role for your Lordship's House to take. Those voices are clamoring,

not just here in Parliament, but in the children's society, think

tanks, as well as newspapers, who are poor on government. We have had

to think of the arguments as to whether this oversteps our

constitutional authority. It does not. I will give way. Could she tell

us how much the ladies per puzzle would cost? She is very keen to

tell. I had hoped that he had out would in his courteous way refer to

that the savings would come from the government automatically by the rise

in living wage of which three quarters of a billion each and every

year a cruise back to the government. Secondly, by the fact

that new claimants due to tax credits are not covered by -- and

third because the national office says that by 2019 over 90% of those

tax credits will be on universal credit, where they will have the

cuts. The government will have matching savings which probably

exceed the Barakat said that the government demands. My Lords, I

think that the point that the Noble Lord he makes... LAUGHTER date the

point that she makes is that this is a choice for the government, not a

necessity. I think that what we have seen over the last week, and it has

lightened all of us on the government reluctance to accept

challenge or proper scrutiny, there is no constitutional crisis looming

adult. -- at all. The prime minister has not dealt with a very serious

problems with this task are the policy. In the last Labour

government, we lost dozens of votes here in the House of Lords on a

range of issues. I'm at 18 -- on 18 -- on one Ko we accepted and moved

on. There was no point that this official opposition does not accept

the right of the government's legislation. It has to do so

properly, and must do a properly on getting things right all of the

time. On this case, we should really believe that the government has got

it wrong. I have to say that the threats that have been made to the

House of Lords as an institution is nothing more than Parliamentary

Bouvier. Threats to suspend the House of Lords, to cut borrowings,

do nothing to address the issues before us, and have given rise to

concerns. There is a need for true reform to your Lordship soused. --

house. Those threats have nothing to do with reform, and everything to do

with the government not wanting to be challenged, and not wanting to

think again. My Lords, I think that my final point is that this is a

common sense what to do things. This hostile to the issue, it considers

that, it think that the government has got it wrong, so we should send

it back to the government and urge them to rethink and comes back with

something significantly better at that doesn't harm and create

enormous fear in those people in work who are struggling to make ends

meet who are terrified of the letters that are going to come into

their letterboxes near Christmas. Will not exceed our authority, but

neither will we be cowed into neglecting our responsibilities to

making the government accountable. My Lords, the privilege of falls to

me as a deputy leader of winding up this debate, which has proved a

remarkable one. In a number of ways, a landmark in the proceedings of the

house. We have been treated to extremely powerful contributions

with for and against, and for and against amendments that have been

tabled. I listened with care to them all. I suggested to your lordships

that there are two aspects of the matter that we are here to consider.