26/10/2015

:00:00. > :00:00.the House of Commons after the votes which is expected at about half past

:00:00. > :00:12.five, you can follow live coverage of both chambers of on our website.

:00:13. > :00:17.Instead, this is a Dailymotion, it is not as the government knows, it

:00:18. > :00:20.was drafted with the help of the clerks. It calls for a scheme of

:00:21. > :00:27.transitional protection before the House further considers this

:00:28. > :00:30.essentially, my lords the courts would apply to the new payments on

:00:31. > :00:38.the new payments only. Frankly, that could be drafted in a week. And

:00:39. > :00:42.implemented next April exactly as planned. Does it none the less my

:00:43. > :00:54.lords break prevention by trespassing on commoners financial

:00:55. > :00:58.privilege? No. The advice, can be referred by words on the specific

:00:59. > :01:05.issue as that comments financial privilege is exercised in two ways.

:01:06. > :01:08.Begin and then an education bill that the laws can reject our

:01:09. > :01:15.amendment if the Speaker certifies that the comments has financial

:01:16. > :01:22.privilege on this issue. Secondly, the Commons can pass a supply on any

:01:23. > :01:26.bill which we cannot amend. Financial privilege does not extend

:01:27. > :01:33.to statutory instruments. Hear, hear! It simply does not. Nor are

:01:34. > :01:39.statutory instruments covered by the preventions. More so, I would add,

:01:40. > :01:43.because the poor minister ruled them out himself, and he did because

:01:44. > :01:50.these layered elements to tax credits are all affected by the

:01:51. > :01:55.paper and the Kotze. My lords, as has been said if government wanted

:01:56. > :02:00.financial privilege these cuts should be in a money bill. They are

:02:01. > :02:04.not. If they wanted the right to overturn them on the grounds of

:02:05. > :02:09.financial privilege, it could as has been said been introduced in the

:02:10. > :02:17.welfare reform bill on its way here. They did not. So, why now my lords

:02:18. > :02:22.should we be expected to treat this as I as financially privileged when

:02:23. > :02:30.the government itself who could have made it so chose not to do so? Hear,

:02:31. > :02:36.hear! My lords, it is not a constitutional crisis, that is a fig

:02:37. > :02:41.leaf described disguised between members of the government. My lords,

:02:42. > :02:47.we can be supportive of the government and give them what they

:02:48. > :02:54.did not ask for, financial privilege, or we can be supported

:02:55. > :02:57.instead of those three minutes 3 million families facing letters at

:02:58. > :03:03.Christmas telling them on average they would lose up to around 1300

:03:04. > :03:11.pounds a year. A letter which would take away 10% of their income on

:03:12. > :03:19.average. Those families believed us, they beat us when we all said that

:03:20. > :03:23.work was the best route out of poverty, that work would always

:03:24. > :03:30.pay. They believed the Prime Minister what he promised that tax

:03:31. > :03:37.credits would not be touched. But why do people need tax credits, if

:03:38. > :03:43.the House would allow me two woman in a poor Center, one single working

:03:44. > :03:49.35 hours a week from April earned 13 K a year for herself. Another a dead

:03:50. > :03:57.mother with two and children managing 25 hours a week earns 9000

:03:58. > :04:01.a year for the three of them. We Saturday, I am completely right on

:04:02. > :04:07.this, we certainly should not be subsidizing employers do pay. But no

:04:08. > :04:13.employer could pay the deserted mother twice as much per hour as a

:04:14. > :04:23.single woman on the next phone in the core centre to make up for her

:04:24. > :04:30.family circumstances. The employer cannot do that. Is not reasonable

:04:31. > :04:36.that we should ask it, that is the job of tax credits which reflect

:04:37. > :04:40.family circumstances which the employer cannot reasonably do. My

:04:41. > :04:42.lords, 43% of single-parent is now 65% of 18% increase partly because

:04:43. > :04:52.of tax credits make work pay for them. That is our contract with her.

:04:53. > :04:58.She has done everything we asked, now we will send her editor at

:04:59. > :05:05.Christmas taking away some ?1300. Her life is hard, she needs

:05:06. > :05:09.financial stability at which to bring opera children. She needs

:05:10. > :05:14.transitional protection to the cuts only affects those will not put

:05:15. > :05:21.their lives around the protection that tax credits currently offer. My

:05:22. > :05:24.lords, national newspapers from the telegraphed to the sun are asking

:05:25. > :05:33.the government to think again before it goes Christmas letters arrive.

:05:34. > :05:38.The ISS says the Treasury are arithmetically impossible. Get those

:05:39. > :05:46.Christmas letters will still arrive. Members of the conservative

:05:47. > :05:50.party have expressed as the cards are too hard and too fast. Yet those

:05:51. > :06:00.letters will still arrive at Christmas. BBB told perhaps among

:06:01. > :06:09.others, we have talked about this and he has gone on record as saying

:06:10. > :06:17.this but the comments has made your position clear the times already

:06:18. > :06:22.that in nasty's general debate on tax credits. My lords, is that

:06:23. > :06:23.right? What happens my lords when the Commons has in my view made its

:06:24. > :06:28.decision on incomplete decisions some of which is only now becoming

:06:29. > :06:37.available? The government insists taking the average ?1300 from 3

:06:38. > :06:39.million poor families, there is. They can and should offer

:06:40. > :06:45.transitional protection to existing families, called on tax credits,

:06:46. > :06:55.single parents, the self-employed it is tens of thousands a year. We

:06:56. > :07:01.could protect them, those on universal credits my lords. You

:07:02. > :07:07.would not know this from the impact analysis which I have to say, I am

:07:08. > :07:17.confident that the government does not need to make the specific cards

:07:18. > :07:21.which it has authority to do. Why? Two Major points my lords. From the

:07:22. > :07:31.additional revenues by return to government from the rise indeed very

:07:32. > :07:37.welcome national living wage. There is an increase back to the

:07:38. > :07:44.government of the quarters of ?1 million, 753 million, that was about

:07:45. > :07:48.to be back government. The effect of differentials which we cannot

:07:49. > :07:53.populate. By year two, the government is making savings of that

:07:54. > :07:57.alone, maybe 3 billion. Second, I don't think this is mentioned

:07:58. > :08:03.anywhere in the Commons debates, it is crucial those cuts will also take

:08:04. > :08:09.in as families move over to universal credit, as I am sure the

:08:10. > :08:19.Noble Lord would confirm. By the end of 2019, the National Audit Office

:08:20. > :08:26.says an 9%, 9% less than one intends of existing tax credits recipients

:08:27. > :08:34.will still be on tax credits. Will no longer need them, the neck rest

:08:35. > :08:36.of the payments should be on universal credits and the government

:08:37. > :08:48.will get its full savings from them. The statutory instrument cuts for

:08:49. > :08:53.tracks credits are more sustainable, and marketing. Quite my Lords, since

:08:54. > :08:58.track tax credits will have disappeared. My Lords, some of this

:08:59. > :09:03.data that I would have liked to have used more robustly, the government

:09:04. > :09:09.does not collect. Over the next four years, these savings to government,

:09:10. > :09:13.from the rise in wages, he moved to a universal credit, and the natural

:09:14. > :09:17.turn of claimants, I estimate should match and more than match the

:09:18. > :09:27.savings that HMT claims that it needs from these specific tax credit

:09:28. > :09:36.cards. If so, the government gets its welfare savings, and can get its

:09:37. > :09:40.welfare savings. I'm not sure about tax rates of work pension release,

:09:41. > :09:49.but the government can get its welfare savings without these

:09:50. > :09:55.specific cuts. My Lords, I ask you, should the comments not even have

:09:56. > :09:58.discussed this? Have made it different to their position? They

:09:59. > :10:02.have not discussed it so far. We don't know. We don't have that

:10:03. > :10:07.information, and impact analysis did not give that information, some of

:10:08. > :10:12.it is now only coming out. It is reasonable that as the information

:10:13. > :10:16.comes to that challenges, the comments should be given a chance to

:10:17. > :10:21.think again in the light of that. My Lords, this makes a motion is not

:10:22. > :10:25.fatal, it does not challenge financial privilege, and he does not

:10:26. > :10:32.tonight government its welfare savings. It delays in the SSI to ask

:10:33. > :10:36.the government to provide additional protection for existing families who

:10:37. > :10:42.are doing everything that we ask of them. Who trusted the prime

:10:43. > :10:49.minister's word, that tax credits would not be cut, and a trusted

:10:50. > :10:56.Parliament, us. My Lords, when we said that we would make work pay, my

:10:57. > :11:00.Lords what happens next? If the house were to support my motion, the

:11:01. > :11:06.government could come back quite quickly, I estimate it a week, with

:11:07. > :11:12.a new aside in which these rates and can't apply only to new claimants.

:11:13. > :11:17.Is all. It is very simple. If the House agreed to that new SI, it

:11:18. > :11:22.would then go to the comments, who would accept it, or rejected.

:11:23. > :11:29.Their's would quite properly, absolutely beady final word, as our

:11:30. > :11:34.conventions demand. They would have kept to the premise, and that is

:11:35. > :11:40.right. We would have kept safe, with struggling families, and perhaps

:11:41. > :11:47.ever store some taken from it. My Lords, let the final words rest with

:11:48. > :11:55.what families themselves say, as they face those Christmas letters. I

:11:56. > :11:59.quote "I already work 40 hours a work under minimum wage of doing two

:12:00. > :12:06.jobs around my children. I cannot believe that this is actually going

:12:07. > :12:09.to happen. I am terrified. We are not scroungers, we worked

:12:10. > :12:14.unbelievably hard just to keep going, and once again we are being

:12:15. > :12:21.punished for trying to earn a living wage. " She will ease -- lose a over

:12:22. > :12:29.?1000 a year after she gets a Christmas letter. "My husband works

:12:30. > :12:38.for full-time as a firefighter. We have four children. We won't

:12:39. > :12:47.survive." She stands to lose in her Christmas letter ?2940. Rachel, from

:12:48. > :12:52.Milton Keynes. "They probably means, that his parents will skip a few

:12:53. > :13:00.extra meals to ensure that our children eat. " She is standing to

:13:01. > :13:13.lose in her Christmas letter ?2005. Finally, my Lords. Tony from my city

:13:14. > :13:23.of Lords. " My children are exhausted. Their Christmas letter

:13:24. > :13:32.--" they will lose ?60 a week and her Christmas letter. ?2120. A

:13:33. > :13:39.family where she is in full-time work, and she is worth caring for

:13:40. > :13:44.disabled children. ?3000. We do not need to do this to them. Last week,

:13:45. > :13:50.the prime minister said let us make work pay. He is right, and this

:13:51. > :13:55.motion is in that spirit. It will protect deserted mothers and loan

:13:56. > :13:59.the parents who want their children to grow up in a household where

:14:00. > :14:03.their parent works. Parents who live out their lives instruments to

:14:04. > :14:11.others, and struggle to maintain a foothold in the Labour market.

:14:12. > :14:14.Families, who exhausted themselves caring for disabled children, were

:14:15. > :14:21.the self-employed who we hope will help us build a more productive and

:14:22. > :14:30.entrepreneurial economy. My Lords, if we don't pass my motion today, or

:14:31. > :14:37.even if we pass the Bishop's motion, this as I becomes law tonight. Law

:14:38. > :14:42.tonight. Whatever the comments decides on Thursday, the Chandler

:14:43. > :14:50.then need to do nothing at all, because the aside -- as I will make

:14:51. > :14:55.it right by law. Is that what we want? Or do we want to give the

:14:56. > :15:02.comments a pause to think about this additional information, additional

:15:03. > :15:05.information that is coming through from the think tanks, and additional

:15:06. > :15:09.thoughts that members of the conservative party may no half in

:15:10. > :15:15.the light of the correspondence with their constituents. He my Lords, I

:15:16. > :15:20.hope I don't some pious, but I think that this is about honouring our

:15:21. > :15:26.alert, the prime minister's word that work must always pay. It is

:15:27. > :15:34.about, surely, respect for those who strive to do everything that we ask

:15:35. > :15:41.of them. For those who now find themselves punished for doing what

:15:42. > :15:49.is right. It is about trust between Parliament and the people that we

:15:50. > :15:51.serve. I beg to move. -- I'd like to echo the last words of the noble

:15:52. > :16:04.lady. My Lords, I deeply regret that the

:16:05. > :16:09.government's regulations before us today lead me and others in this

:16:10. > :16:13.house for whom politics is not a vocation, to be part of a debate

:16:14. > :16:23.with constitutional and political implications. I'm aware of her

:16:24. > :16:28.Majesty's government manifesto commitment to eradicate deficits,

:16:29. > :16:33.including through welfare payments. Also of the studies of lack of

:16:34. > :16:39.detail about how this was to be achieved. It is impossible to claim

:16:40. > :16:46.now that we should somehow have anticipated these proposals when

:16:47. > :16:50.they were not detailed. Indeed, we were assured that sharing the burden

:16:51. > :16:59.was appropriate, and network should pay. My primary concern with these

:17:00. > :17:04.regulations is with a short-term impact on some of our poorest

:17:05. > :17:09.families. We have been encouraged to consider these measures as part of a

:17:10. > :17:15.package of measures, that includes increases in the minimum wage toward

:17:16. > :17:20.the national living wage, childcare provision, and raising the income

:17:21. > :17:27.tax threshold. We are told that this is a five-year programme on a

:17:28. > :17:33.journey toward a higher pay lower tax lower welfare economy. This

:17:34. > :17:40.argument will be stamped consolation to the three million and more low

:17:41. > :17:47.income families who will see a very large reduction as we have heard in

:17:48. > :17:53.their tax credits from next April. To be assured that you will be

:17:54. > :17:58.better off in five years' time will not help these families to pay the

:17:59. > :18:04.rent, or gas, or electricity bills. The government is boldly confident

:18:05. > :18:10.that this will be so. This will be so within five years. Their

:18:11. > :18:16.confidence for the future sounds like extraordinary I do missing

:18:17. > :18:20.today for the working families, including 4 million children who

:18:21. > :18:28.will pay such a huge price, and bear such a heavy burden immediately on

:18:29. > :18:34.the introduction of these changes. Of course, I welcome the pledge, to

:18:35. > :18:40.incrementally increase the minimum wage, which will benefit some next

:18:41. > :18:50.year, and may give small amelioration to those on the minimum

:18:51. > :18:54.wage. Only for them, unless, as time passes, there may just be some knock

:18:55. > :19:01.on rollover impact on wage levels for those on a very modest wage,

:19:02. > :19:09.just above the present minimum. The likeliest knock on effects in the

:19:10. > :19:14.short term will be indebtedness, Terrance, mental, health, and

:19:15. > :19:21.children's education and future life chances. In addition to a sudden

:19:22. > :19:32.drop of income of up to 10%, many will face a marginal 80% hit on the

:19:33. > :19:35.income, Weatherby increase or rise wages, and even higher in some

:19:36. > :19:40.instances when other benefits are factored in. If that were a marginal

:19:41. > :19:50.tax rate, there will be howls of protest. What reward is that? For

:19:51. > :19:56.those willing to work hard? It is also grossly insensitive to the many

:19:57. > :20:01.Puritans who already work full-time, or struggle to work their work with

:20:02. > :20:09.childcare and other responsibilities in order to provide for their

:20:10. > :20:14.family's financial and other needs. While the increase in the minimum

:20:15. > :20:20.wage, the rise in the income tax threshold is being phased in over

:20:21. > :20:24.the years, the changes to the income threshold from tax credit, any

:20:25. > :20:31.increase in the taper rate take immediate effect. Of course,

:20:32. > :20:37.employers should pay decently, and not rely on the rest of us to

:20:38. > :20:42.subsidize their low rates of pay. While they may expect to be rewarded

:20:43. > :20:47.for better practice, with changes in company taxation, those receiving

:20:48. > :20:59.tax credits will receive the impact immediately. A carrier for some, a

:21:00. > :21:04.stick for others. -- carrot. I say it that these proposals are morally

:21:05. > :21:12.indefensible. It is clear to me, and I believe to very many others, that

:21:13. > :21:17.these proposals blatantly threatened damage to the lives of millions of

:21:18. > :21:23.our fellow citizens. This must not be the way to achieve the

:21:24. > :21:27.government's goals, at a cost to those who, if we believe to the

:21:28. > :21:36.rhetoric, the government intends to encourage and support. To many in my

:21:37. > :21:43.diocese, and well beyond, this seems punishing rather than encouragement.

:21:44. > :21:49.I hope that we can here this afternoon assurance, a commitment,

:21:50. > :21:55.to consult and to listen, and a willingness to revisit these

:21:56. > :22:03.proposals in the coming weeks. A commitment.

:22:04. > :22:08.He's spoken movingly and greatly about the end injustice and

:22:09. > :22:12.suffering that has been called by the passing of this unamended.

:22:13. > :22:16.Doesn't it feel in those circumstances that it is not just

:22:17. > :22:23.our duty to talk about it or record our objection, but to do something

:22:24. > :22:28.to stop the? I am grateful for the intervention. I believe that our

:22:29. > :22:34.first duty is to speak, and in a variety of ways to act. That would

:22:35. > :22:38.involve, as many of you know, very many who participate in charitable

:22:39. > :22:46.organizations and support on the ground I'm a end I commit that those

:22:47. > :22:50.in my diocese will do our very best. I had my very self will be listening

:22:51. > :23:00.to this debate before I determine how I shall vote on the amendment

:23:01. > :23:03.before us. I return, if I may, to those commitments I asked that the

:23:04. > :23:08.government might make over the coming weeks. I asked the North

:23:09. > :23:12.noble Baroness if she can make those commitments on behalf of the

:23:13. > :23:19.government's during the last few days, I have wrestled long and hard

:23:20. > :23:25.with the question of how to vote, and guess how to vote, and how to

:23:26. > :23:33.speak today. Part of the dilemma has been anger, and the party political

:23:34. > :23:39.point scoring, any rating of the issues around constitutional

:23:40. > :23:45.matters. That has obscured what ought to be a measured and careful

:23:46. > :23:53.consideration as to the best interests of the poorest workers in

:23:54. > :23:57.our society. I am appalled by the government's proposals. I

:23:58. > :24:03.emphatically did not table of this amendment, because of party

:24:04. > :24:09.political pressures. I am aware of the conflicting views of

:24:10. > :24:13.constitutional matters. This amendment offers an alternative, and

:24:14. > :24:18.in the opportunity to do, no matter what happens to the other three

:24:19. > :24:25.amendments, for this house to register its disapproval of these

:24:26. > :24:30.proposals. Also its expectations that are reservations will be

:24:31. > :24:36.addressed. Your Lordship's house in my judgement must make that clear. I

:24:37. > :24:43.will be listening carefully to further contributions this

:24:44. > :24:51.afternoon. I intend to vote with the interests of those who have most to

:24:52. > :24:59.lose to this bill. -- in my heart. Should other amendments fail, fall,

:25:00. > :25:04.then I present mine as a respectful, but for my message to the government

:25:05. > :25:09.that disability is not acceptable in its current form, these regulations

:25:10. > :25:15.are not acceptable in their current form. Significant work is required

:25:16. > :25:18.for us to be satisfied that the needs of those working for low

:25:19. > :25:43.incomes will be met. My Lords, high. -- hello. My Lords,

:25:44. > :25:48.we have just heard a very moving -- moving the speech is in relation to

:25:49. > :25:52.this matter. I have no doubt that as the gator of the House has said, the

:25:53. > :25:58.Chancellor will consider these matters very carefully. I know that

:25:59. > :26:07.it is extremely difficult to analyse the precise effects of income tax or

:26:08. > :26:11.tax credit changes to an individual circumstance. Your lordships will

:26:12. > :26:21.remember that when Mr Gordon Brown, as the Chancellor, sought to take

:26:22. > :26:26.out of the tax system be 10% tax a band that had previously existed,

:26:27. > :26:30.the difficulty of finding out precisely who were affected and how

:26:31. > :26:37.they were affected turns out to be extremely difficult. I believe that

:26:38. > :26:40.the difficulties in this connection also may well be that the

:26:41. > :26:46.information that arises in the course of the attempt to deliver

:26:47. > :26:54.this will show in detail what is required if changes should be made.

:26:55. > :27:01.My Lords, I am intending to do only with the constitutional question as

:27:02. > :27:06.I see it. These draft regulations are made under the tax credit act,

:27:07. > :27:11.which sets up mechanisms for the payment of tax credits of two types.

:27:12. > :27:17.Children's tax credits, and work tax credits. The arrangements were under

:27:18. > :27:22.the control of the land read Brendan, who are entitled under

:27:23. > :27:28.schedule two to deduct the tax credits from the income of the board

:27:29. > :27:38.to taxation. It is perfectly clear that these tax credits are a charge

:27:39. > :27:41.on the taxes raised. The details of the credits, and the machinery

:27:42. > :27:51.needed for the registration that were sent out in the sections of the

:27:52. > :27:58.act. Section 66 of the act says that "no registration of this subsection

:27:59. > :28:02.replies -- no amendment will be made whether another provision has been

:28:03. > :28:07.laid before and prevent -- approved by a resolution of each house of

:28:08. > :28:10.parliament. " Some of parliament." Some sections won't apply to

:28:11. > :28:17.regulations on a monetary amounts which are required to be reviewed

:28:18. > :28:23.under section 41. The section -- system under which this instrument

:28:24. > :28:27.has been made, and accordingly the instrument before the House requires

:28:28. > :28:36.to be approved by each house of Parliament before it be made. The

:28:37. > :28:43.instrument, as we know, was approved by the other place, and to reverse

:28:44. > :28:51.it was defeated in the other place. It has come to us as a matter which

:28:52. > :28:58.has been fully considered so far as the other place has been concerned

:28:59. > :29:04.up to now. In considering this, regard must be had to the financial

:29:05. > :29:08.privileges of the other place. This is not a question of the conventions

:29:09. > :29:12.of this house, it has nothing to do a fat. It has to do with the

:29:13. > :29:19.financial privileges that book blog to the House of Commons. He so far

:29:20. > :29:26.as I understand it, there is nothing to prevent a motion, on the lines

:29:27. > :29:32.that have been proposed here, being considered by this house. The

:29:33. > :29:37.question is whether the consideration can properly interview

:29:38. > :29:48.with the financial interests of the chamber. My Lords, the practice is

:29:49. > :29:55.ruled today by resolutions which remain in the 16 70s. The last one

:29:56. > :29:59.of these, the fullest, is that all aid and supplies, aides to his

:30:00. > :30:05.Majesty and Parliament, are the sole gift of the comments, and all bills

:30:06. > :30:10.for the granting of any such aid of ore supplies ought to be given for

:30:11. > :30:14.the comments, and it is the undoubted and the sole right of the

:30:15. > :30:20.comments to direct, limits, and a in such bills the ends, purposes,

:30:21. > :30:29.limitations, and qualifications of such grants which ought not to be

:30:30. > :30:34.altered by the House of Lords. It is clear, as I said, that these tax

:30:35. > :30:38.credit payments are made out of the supply raised by taxation, and that

:30:39. > :30:45.the other places have decided that the tax credit act should be amended

:30:46. > :30:48.in terms of the approved draft. I am clearly of opinion that a failure of

:30:49. > :30:54.the bar on this House to approve the draft of this instrument would be a

:30:55. > :31:00.breach of the fundamental privileges of the elected chamber. It may be

:31:01. > :31:05.asked, why is the approval of this house required? I believe that it is

:31:06. > :31:11.as a courtesy to the house, just as the house is asked to agree to the

:31:12. > :31:17.passing of money bills to becoming acts of Parliament. The house never

:31:18. > :31:20.seeks to delay them, as the house is obliged to respect the financial

:31:21. > :31:25.privileges of the elected chamber, and how it views with these matters,

:31:26. > :31:31.and it should view this particular matter in the same way. To decline

:31:32. > :31:36.to give up approve this draft, or to decline to review it until certain

:31:37. > :31:42.conditions are met, is a refusal to accept as a decision of the elected

:31:43. > :31:46.house on a matter of financial privilege is the final authority for

:31:47. > :32:00.it. It has to be noted that this is a matter of the privilege of elected

:32:01. > :32:23.chamber, not of the government. What the motion that had been put forward

:32:24. > :32:28.does, is to... LAUGHTER a refusal to accept the decision of the elected

:32:29. > :32:33.house on a matter of a financial a privilege, and that is what this

:32:34. > :32:39.amounts to, and has to be noted that this is the privilege of the elected

:32:40. > :32:47.chamber, not of the government. I want to say that the amendment

:32:48. > :32:54.proposed by the right Reverend, and I will gladly get it right this

:32:55. > :32:59.time, is entirely in accordance with the arrangements in this house, and

:33:00. > :33:02.with the financial privileges of the House of Commons. Therefore, from

:33:03. > :33:12.the point of view from the powers of this house, the motions that have

:33:13. > :33:17.been put forward... I believe that what the leader said in opening that

:33:18. > :33:31.considering the detail of this... The conventions to which he refers,

:33:32. > :33:39.going back to the 17th century, are so uncertain that the conservative

:33:40. > :33:44.party in 1908, defeated the budget, in which he sought to give money to

:33:45. > :33:51.the poor people of this country, and does he not agree that the 1911 act

:33:52. > :33:56.set out a mechanism whereby the Speaker, would certify, that a money

:33:57. > :34:03.bill was a money bill. And that would remove from us, our powers of

:34:04. > :34:10.consideration. To -- is he not going back to an argument that failed over

:34:11. > :34:18.a hundred years ago? Not at all. I am saying what is the present

:34:19. > :34:22.practice, according to... In relation to matters of financial

:34:23. > :34:26.privileged. It is not a matter of the conventions of this house, it is

:34:27. > :34:38.a matter of the rights of the other place in this matter, and in my

:34:39. > :34:46.clear submission, this is, in fact, challenging the final authority of

:34:47. > :34:49.the elected house, in a matter of financial privilege. And it is true

:34:50. > :34:59.that the Liberal Democrats, at least I suck pose it was the Liberal

:35:00. > :35:04.party, explored this, and found it necessary to take further action to

:35:05. > :35:12.ensure that the practice should be built up in the 17th century, and it

:35:13. > :35:19.applied in the 20th century, and beyond, and of course it put in

:35:20. > :35:28.place mechanisms, to prevent the financial privileges being in any

:35:29. > :35:39.way transgressed again. My Lord, I ask... I'm grateful for him giving

:35:40. > :35:45.way. To ask how he feels that there is an amendment on the Mendel, for

:35:46. > :35:50.passing Wessels -- legislation that will affect hundreds of thousands of

:35:51. > :35:55.people? Is that it the arrangement that is proposed, the tax credit

:35:56. > :35:58.act, which is passed by the labour government in 2002. It is thought to

:35:59. > :36:03.be the right way to do this particular thing, with what the

:36:04. > :36:13.Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, is to follow that. And I would

:36:14. > :36:18.suggest necessary consequences for that, that the Commons or labour

:36:19. > :36:23.government should use a different procedure, in order to secure the

:36:24. > :36:28.financial privilege of the House of Commons. This procedure has been

:36:29. > :36:36.laid down, and the tax credits act, which is the main statutory in this

:36:37. > :36:40.matter, and for the government to do anything other than use that

:36:41. > :36:49.particular course, would seem to be offensive to the way in which this

:36:50. > :36:54.system was set up. And I am saying to your lordships is that in light

:36:55. > :37:01.of what the leader of houses said, about the attitude of the Chancellor

:37:02. > :37:04.of the Exchequer, when more detailed material is available, it is a

:37:05. > :37:14.matter of considerable consolation to me in light of what the right

:37:15. > :37:21.Reverend has said. As I said your lordships, I believe that is the

:37:22. > :37:34.safest way to secure what is asked for by a member of your lordships.

:37:35. > :37:36.First, this represents a lamentable example for not evidence based

:37:37. > :37:41.procedures. The victims of which are going to suffer greatly, and

:37:42. > :37:45.secondly, the arguments used to justify the policy, with reference

:37:46. > :37:51.to other policy changes, and how people could or even should work

:37:52. > :37:56.harder, betrays a lack of understanding of policy, and of

:37:57. > :38:01.people's lives. In his letter to the financial Secretary, the Social

:38:02. > :38:04.Security advisor recommitted to criticise the scant evidence to

:38:05. > :38:08.support the policy changes. It does not encourage the government to make

:38:09. > :38:12.available to Parliament, more detailed information, that clearly

:38:13. > :38:16.explains the changes and potential impacts, to ensure that they can be

:38:17. > :38:22.subject to effective scrutiny, with respect to the Noble Lord, the sack

:38:23. > :38:27.clearly believed that it is possible to provide such an -- information

:38:28. > :38:34.something the advice was ignored. Leading to the Secretary legislation

:38:35. > :38:39.committee to exert -- contained minimal information. My Lord,

:38:40. > :38:43.getting an impact assessment out of the government, could be like

:38:44. > :38:48.pulling teeth. That which finally emerges is a travesty. Much of it

:38:49. > :38:53.simply repeats repetitive repetitively, the rationale behind

:38:54. > :38:57.the policy. It certainly does not provide the information about

:38:58. > :39:02.potential impacts that is thought. There is no information on the

:39:03. > :39:05.impact of such on different groups affected, including the Celtic

:39:06. > :39:09.group, which we have heard, cannot benefit from an increase in the

:39:10. > :39:15.minimum wage. The information about the impact and protecting groups, is

:39:16. > :39:19.simply laughable. And when I asked in a written question of how many

:39:20. > :39:27.receipt of care is allowed, are also... Memorable, return the

:39:28. > :39:30.information could only be provided at disproportionate cost. But I know

:39:31. > :39:33.here in the UK, people are very worried about the likely impact on

:39:34. > :39:39.all carriers receiving working tax credit. In the letter accompanying

:39:40. > :39:43.the impact assessment, the Chancellor excuse the delay on the

:39:44. > :39:48.grounds that the government does not usually published this for statutory

:39:49. > :39:52.instruments at this time, my Lord, I find this statement to be revealing,

:39:53. > :39:58.and it suggest that the government made no attempt to assess the impact

:39:59. > :40:05.before going ahead with such significant cuts. But it sees and I

:40:06. > :40:09.ate as a tick box at the side, to pacify pesky parliamentary

:40:10. > :40:13.committees, surely, given the Prime minister's pledge at the

:40:14. > :40:18.conference, an all-out assault on poverty, the government would want

:40:19. > :40:22.to know the impact on -- poverty. But no, it was left for Resolution

:40:23. > :40:27.Foundation, to point out that there could be an additional 200,000

:40:28. > :40:33.children falling into poverty next year, rising to 600,000 by 2020,

:40:34. > :40:37.with other summer budget measures have to take into effect. Shortly,

:40:38. > :40:42.the government that is promised to apply the family test, to every

:40:43. > :40:48.measure, would want to know the impact on low income families. A

:40:49. > :40:51.point made by Heidi Alan, and her passionate maiden speech,

:40:52. > :40:56.demolishing her own government's policy, and shortly, a government

:40:57. > :41:01.that goes on calls about making work pay, would want to know the impact

:41:02. > :41:06.on low paid workers. But we had to look at another department for that.

:41:07. > :41:09.The government appears to be contracting out genuine assessment

:41:10. > :41:16.of impact, to the voluntary sector. But of course, that is an assessment

:41:17. > :41:20.after, rather than as part of the policymaking process. That is one

:41:21. > :41:24.reason why it is so important that your lordships House asks the

:41:25. > :41:29.government to think again, in light of the evidence is emerged the

:41:30. > :41:33.damaging impact the cuts will have. My Lord, I'm grateful to all of

:41:34. > :41:35.those organizations, who have exposed by the overall policy

:41:36. > :41:42.package that the government constantly sites, does not amount an

:41:43. > :41:46.adequate policy. Particularly in the case of parents who will be

:41:47. > :41:51.disproportionately affected according to gingerbread. And a key

:41:52. > :41:55.reason why the overall package does not provide adequate protection, is

:41:56. > :42:00.that with the exception of child care, it applies only to a very

:42:01. > :42:07.limited age range, the other policies, the increase in the

:42:08. > :42:13.minimum wage, and in personal tax allowances, less welcome, because it

:42:14. > :42:15.is wasteful. They cannot take account of the presence of

:42:16. > :42:23.children. A point made by my noble friend. All the talk about tax

:42:24. > :42:28.credits, such as those with no pay, ignores the fact that child tax

:42:29. > :42:33.credits were introduced primarily as a child poverty measure. My Lord,

:42:34. > :42:38.wages cannot take account of the presence of children. That was one

:42:39. > :42:47.reason why fell a allowance was introduced. White in increase --

:42:48. > :42:49.family. Which is currently frozen, provide more effective mitigation,

:42:50. > :42:55.and further increases in tax allowances. Finally, according to

:42:56. > :43:03.the health Secretary, the cuts are intended to set a very important

:43:04. > :43:06.cultural signal, about hard work. The receipt of tax credits is

:43:07. > :43:11.somehow incompatible with independent, self respect, and

:43:12. > :43:19.dignity. It does not appear to understand that reducing the income

:43:20. > :43:24.threshold and increasing the rate, penalizes what he calls hard work,

:43:25. > :43:28.and likewise, the work and pensions secretary suggested that the problem

:43:29. > :43:34.can be solved, if those hardest hit are encouraged to work a few extra

:43:35. > :43:37.hours. But even if extra hours were feasible, and available, it is a

:43:38. > :43:43.game from doing so, will be reduced by the very changes that they are

:43:44. > :43:46.supposed to mitigate every the children's Society points out that

:43:47. > :43:55.every extra ?1 and wages could provide a net increase of only 3p

:43:56. > :43:59.for those receiving benefits, and only 20p for those not. And what

:44:00. > :44:05.about those with family responsibilities? Particularly

:44:06. > :44:13.parents from working extra hours would impact negatively on their

:44:14. > :44:16.family's lights. -- lies. This legislation does not stand up to

:44:17. > :44:23.scrutiny. The policymaking process for which it has emerged this cannot

:44:24. > :44:30.stand up to scrutiny. It is not, my noble Lords, no one will bear the

:44:31. > :44:35.cost of stopping the low-paid workers who e-mailed to say that he

:44:36. > :44:38.is very scared about he will managed -- managed next year. That'll be

:44:39. > :44:44.hundreds of thousands of children pushed into poverty, my lord, I

:44:45. > :44:51.believe we have a duty to defend them and fellow citizens.

:44:52. > :44:54.believe we have a duty to defend them and fellow citizens That

:44:55. > :45:00.suggests that given the very last number of noble Lords who want to

:45:01. > :45:08.their contributions as briefing to the point, so we can get as many in,

:45:09. > :45:15.and we can go round the houses we are doing, it will help, I think,

:45:16. > :45:20.the sense of balance, and our debate, which noble Lords will

:45:21. > :45:24.appreciate, and I hope that they will excuse me, because normally

:45:25. > :45:33.they would take precedence, and they have indicated another member, and

:45:34. > :45:47.she might speak next. I hope you understand why I wish to do so.

:45:48. > :45:55.Might job is to offer my best expertise, to help the government to

:45:56. > :45:57.understand the consequences of legislation for statutory

:45:58. > :46:06.instruments. That is just what I'm going to offer now. Working tax

:46:07. > :46:13.credits to provide an unprecedented and effective point. For disabled

:46:14. > :46:25.people, who faced the greatest barriers, proposes to know working

:46:26. > :46:31.tax credits, and the point to be raised to 48p.

:46:32. > :46:41.For directories and, broad disability, look to their

:46:42. > :46:47.impairments to link increase their working hours, or to offset their

:46:48. > :46:56.losses. Disabled people are more likely to be in low-paid positions.

:46:57. > :46:59.Than non-disabled people. Especially, my lord, people with

:47:00. > :47:07.learning disabilities. My limits, I am not aware of the impact

:47:08. > :47:19.assessment, which evaluated this specific disability, and I fear that

:47:20. > :47:25.this incentivizes disabled people for who a very difficult positions.

:47:26. > :47:30.The benefits into work, and there is little doubt that this will

:47:31. > :47:36.completely impact on the government's other policies, which

:47:37. > :47:44.is to help the disability employment gap, and it does not make sense. And

:47:45. > :47:52.do not forget that this is currently running at over 30%. Therefore,

:47:53. > :47:58.leading and this will inevitably lead to... Health and social care.

:47:59. > :48:08.What is the inevitable resort of unemployment and disabled people.

:48:09. > :48:14.Also, we cannot look at working tax credits. We are promised to join the

:48:15. > :48:20.government, but I'm not aware of any transports that the government's

:48:21. > :48:29.analysis of the cumulative impact of this regulation, on working disabled

:48:30. > :48:36.people to offer... Where is the Department of Health? Many working

:48:37. > :48:42.disabled people are affected by this. And they are also suffering

:48:43. > :48:45.from cuts to their social care and support, the closure of the

:48:46. > :48:51.Independent living fun, and the changes in access to work. It

:48:52. > :48:59.affects, my Lord, the government is making employment less likely for

:49:00. > :49:12.people with these needs than not. And they know that this is not their

:49:13. > :49:23.intention. So, I'm hoping that this little bit of detail and reality and

:49:24. > :49:27.evidence will help us to reflect and maybe the government might change

:49:28. > :49:33.its mind. I do not know. But I'm deeply worried about this number of

:49:34. > :49:47.people that will be affected and hit by this, and that will not deliver

:49:48. > :49:51.the government's own policy. My Lords, I wish to support the

:49:52. > :49:58.amendment to the motion as table by the right Reverend, in the hope that

:49:59. > :50:00.it will indeed give space for further reflection, and

:50:01. > :50:07.reconsideration of the tax credit proposals. As I believe it will do.

:50:08. > :50:13.And has some potential to. Firstly, I went to brick cord my appreciation

:50:14. > :50:22.in recent months foreign members of the government, that implied hard

:50:23. > :50:25.work, and some recognition on the National Minimum Wage. It is this,

:50:26. > :50:29.rather than buttressing from the state, that should provide the

:50:30. > :50:36.income of working people. It follows from this, my lords, rising wages

:50:37. > :50:40.and not least from the government's own proposals, on a national living

:50:41. > :50:45.wage. Will of their own accord reduced the use of tax credits, in

:50:46. > :50:51.due course. Without the introduction of regulations in the foreign

:50:52. > :50:54.office. My Lords, it is my calling and privilege to say that this

:50:55. > :51:00.covers most of south London, and East Surrey, and indeed, I am hoping

:51:01. > :51:03.several of your lordships living with Bennett, it is a large and

:51:04. > :51:09.populous area, encompassing both significant populations of open

:51:10. > :51:14.deprivation, alongside a very considerable wealth. The

:51:15. > :51:20.unsustainable pressures in which the rental market, as well as rapidly

:51:21. > :51:25.rising house prices, already threatening the balance of many

:51:26. > :51:29.communities, and I feel the introductory of these regulations

:51:30. > :51:33.that push a significant number of hard-working people are learning

:51:34. > :51:38.families to breaking point. A reduction in the threshold for

:51:39. > :51:46.credits are withdrawn, to families earning from ?6,430 to 3850, is a

:51:47. > :51:50.very dramatic change, which will adversely affect all but the poorest

:51:51. > :51:56.members of the communities we serve. Families that strive, struggle,

:51:57. > :52:02.aspire, and hope to advance their well-being will be thrown back since

:52:03. > :52:06.you have the sort of margin between income and expenditure, that

:52:07. > :52:11.conclusion them from the bloat that is coming. And the London Borough of

:52:12. > :52:16.Suffolk alone, whose 50th anniversary is being commemorated

:52:17. > :52:22.this past weekend, it is estimated that some 20,000 families are in

:52:23. > :52:26.receipt of tax credits. And it is further estimated that even making

:52:27. > :52:32.allowance for the mitigating factors being introduced by the government,

:52:33. > :52:38.some 4000 will remain worse off by the changes. That is just one London

:52:39. > :52:42.Borough, my Lords. My Lords, this sort of wage Wright doubled mitigate

:52:43. > :52:48.this, and the extra hours worked to catch up will be taken away by other

:52:49. > :52:53.benefits, even if there were other benefits and hours in the day. The

:52:54. > :52:57.allowances, which benefits a far wider group of people, including

:52:58. > :53:01.members of the chamber, will not compensate for the shortfall. By

:53:02. > :53:06.these regulations, we are in fact asking parents to make their

:53:07. > :53:11.children bear a significant adjustment in their economic

:53:12. > :53:15.circumstances. And adjustment, some children will not understand, which

:53:16. > :53:19.in itself, will be an added stress to the families. My Lord, we risk

:53:20. > :53:24.stripping other citizens of their dignity by these provisions, even

:53:25. > :53:28.though the government stated an intention with the home range of

:53:29. > :53:32.economic and fiscal measures, intending to do the opposite. My

:53:33. > :53:36.Lords, we should take this opportunity to cancel her Majesty's

:53:37. > :53:41.government, not to seek to add to the burden, but for those working

:53:42. > :53:46.hard for their families, and to reconsider in detail the impact of

:53:47. > :53:53.these regulations, and the need for more fully worked out transitional

:53:54. > :54:00.arrangements. I therefore support this as tabled by the right

:54:01. > :54:05.Reverend. But I just asked him why, if he believes this will cause such

:54:06. > :54:11.difficulty, and such distress to so many children, in our community and

:54:12. > :54:20.their parents, why he is telling us to back this motion? I was persuaded

:54:21. > :54:25.by listening to the Noble Lord and the other day explaining the

:54:26. > :54:38.constitutional differences that that exists between two chambers. My

:54:39. > :54:42.Lords, there seem to be two plans to this constitutional crisis. And that

:54:43. > :54:48.is what I would like to address. The first is that this House should not

:54:49. > :54:56.back down. And certainly not under the House of Commons. There is no

:54:57. > :55:02.standing down, and the Parliament act are silent on the prime Mary

:55:03. > :55:06.comments, over statutory instruments. This is taking a very

:55:07. > :55:12.big step, but the good thing there, even if it is rather overthrown, and

:55:13. > :55:17.in this house, we do not look at this so much as that the companion

:55:18. > :55:21.to standing orders, and that is where we find that this house has a

:55:22. > :55:27.benefited right, over statutory incomes. If an instrument is not

:55:28. > :55:32.approved by this house, there is nothing to stop the government from

:55:33. > :55:37.being another instrument that those houses, will change immediately. It

:55:38. > :55:44.is time we stopped being bullied over how we can centre statutory

:55:45. > :55:47.instruments. The other plan, the so-called constitutional crisis,

:55:48. > :55:51.involves the privacy of the House of Commons, and actual matters, and

:55:52. > :55:58.here I echo what the noble Baroness has said. The parent act from which

:55:59. > :56:03.this instrument comes was not considered as among those, and if

:56:04. > :56:10.this house would want to debate this at all, which it is, then it is

:56:11. > :56:16.entitled to prove or on approved it, it is not an impression of courtesy,

:56:17. > :56:20.this is what we do. This is what Parliament as agreed, and we will

:56:21. > :56:25.not be complaining all those affected by this measure, and we

:56:26. > :56:30.simply... Turned our backs to the wall, saying that it was none of our

:56:31. > :56:34.business. At the government had wanted to revolt such a situation,

:56:35. > :56:43.then one earth did they wanted to reduce a very short tax credits

:56:44. > :56:49.amendments Bill? Was none of this on measure. At this house turned back,

:56:50. > :56:55.the comments would have voted for natural privilege, and that would be

:56:56. > :57:01.that. But we might have debated how to do -- tweak such a bill, which

:57:02. > :57:05.would help all those conservative members, just for that. And if the

:57:06. > :57:12.bill route had been taken, we might have had much more impact

:57:13. > :57:17.assessment, which would help those low-paid workers effective, when the

:57:18. > :57:22.tax credit changes happen next April, instead of saying that by

:57:23. > :57:29.2020, they may not be... We surely know that after all the thousands of

:57:30. > :57:36.employers in our country will pay the new living wage immediately, and

:57:37. > :57:38.the numbers of the workers want to make up the shortfall. The

:57:39. > :57:46.government will decide that they can make a very controversial change, by

:57:47. > :57:50.and on a metal bowl statutory instrument, and then passing it by

:57:51. > :57:54.telling us that we can have a constitutional crisis. Surely, it is

:57:55. > :58:01.quite unacceptable, and we should stand up to what we believe to be

:58:02. > :58:10.wrong or right. It is the spirit to be

:58:11. > :58:30.my Lords, I suspected that I'm not the only ONE on this side of the

:58:31. > :58:37.House, who feels torn, because the constitutional position which I'm

:58:38. > :58:44.open, has said Adderall... It is very clear. Are matters of the

:58:45. > :58:48.prerogative of the other place, of the elected chamber, and this is

:58:49. > :58:55.undoubtedly a budgetary matter, however it is chosen topic what is

:58:56. > :59:01.the purpose? The purpose is to help reduce the budget deficit, that

:59:02. > :59:04.everybody has agreed to. I apologise for giving way, but he seems to him

:59:05. > :59:11.flying that the tax credits that shoe, which the House said, will be

:59:12. > :59:17.certified privilege, is he aware that the legislation in 2002,

:59:18. > :59:23.itself, was not subject to financial privilege, and it is rather hard to

:59:24. > :59:26.argue this, from that legislation. I hate back to the noble lady, the

:59:27. > :59:40.Constitution is more important than nit-picking. This is a budgetary

:59:41. > :59:44.matter... Does he think that the clock of the parliament was knit

:59:45. > :59:47.picking, when he told my noble friend at the statutory instruments

:59:48. > :59:53.are not covered by financial privilege? Unequivocally from

:59:54. > :59:57.elsewhere. The point is that this was a budgetary matter, and

:59:58. > :00:01.budgetary matters are the prerogative of the elected House.

:00:02. > :00:05.And that is a most important constitutional principle, this was

:00:06. > :00:09.designed to reduce the budget deficit, which everybody agrees has

:00:10. > :00:18.to be eliminated, on all sides, by something like four and a half

:00:19. > :00:24.billion pounds, and this is clear that this is the Chancellor of the

:00:25. > :00:31.Exchequer, whichever side you may be on, and so that is the

:00:32. > :00:35.constitutional position. I am not going to elaborate, so that is

:00:36. > :00:42.clear. I believe there are aspects of this measure which we to be

:00:43. > :00:52.reconsidered, and indeed changed. The... I think the right Honorable

:00:53. > :00:55.George Osborne Chancellor of the Exchequer, made it clear that he was

:00:56. > :01:01.going to be getting a lot of the savings over to the great from the

:01:02. > :01:08.welfare budget, and this tax credit, which has eluded enormously, is a

:01:09. > :01:12.large part of the budget. I think that is absolutely fair, but the

:01:13. > :01:22.question is the particular instance of this package in the bill. And,

:01:23. > :01:27.what concerns me is not that there are high marginal rates of tax,

:01:28. > :01:34.which are trained to incidentally, that is the Kate -- case we all need

:01:35. > :01:38.to look at. It is absurd to say that these assessed abilities can never

:01:39. > :01:46.be reduced. But nevertheless, there are those tax credit systems at

:01:47. > :01:52.work, that rise surprisingly high, but the scale. But here, the great

:01:53. > :01:56.harm, or any great deal of harm is that the lowest end of the scale.

:01:57. > :02:01.That is what needs to be looked at your. That is what concerns me. I

:02:02. > :02:09.think it is perfectly possible to take more from the operand of the

:02:10. > :02:16.tax credit scale, and less from the lower end of the tax credit scale. I

:02:17. > :02:21.heard my noble friend, the Leader of the House, say that the Chancellor

:02:22. > :02:23.would listen to this debate. I would be surprised if you were to say that

:02:24. > :02:29.the Chancellor would not listen to this debate. Of course he would

:02:30. > :02:35.listen to this, but it is not just this debate that is required, it is

:02:36. > :02:40.change that is required. And I very much acknowledge that my noble

:02:41. > :02:46.friend when he winds up indicates that there is going to be changed,

:02:47. > :02:52.but we do not know what, but we will indicate that it is going to change,

:02:53. > :02:54.and I must say that I intend to support the amendment in the name of

:02:55. > :03:11.the right Reverend. He listens very carefully to the

:03:12. > :03:19.contribution of the former Chancellor, Lord Lawson. His support

:03:20. > :03:25.for what appears to be the Frank Field amendment should be taken

:03:26. > :03:30.seriously. The leader can call on all of the constitutional arguments

:03:31. > :03:37.that she can muster in support of the government, as indeed Ken the

:03:38. > :03:44.Noble Lord came in the issue of financial privilege. All of those

:03:45. > :03:50.arguments claiming to insignificance when compared to the greater

:03:51. > :03:53.argument, the argument that the general public, millions of people

:03:54. > :04:00.outside of this house are going to pay. That being, statements given

:04:01. > :04:06.during the course of the general elections solemn undertakings given

:04:07. > :04:14.by cabinet ministers to the British people on what the attitude would be

:04:15. > :04:18.to tax credits. In the case of Mr golf, who gave the undertaking that

:04:19. > :04:23.there would be no cut in tax credits, which he would be unable to

:04:24. > :04:30.substantiate in any agreement, but what he said on television in the

:04:31. > :04:36.interview, and in particular Mr Cameron, who deliberately misled the

:04:37. > :04:41.British public. The British public would regard what he said now as a

:04:42. > :04:48.lie. A light to win a general election. -- a lie. The British

:04:49. > :04:56.public are fed up with politicians who tell lies on that scale. It

:04:57. > :05:01.exceeded the misleading of the public in the case of the Liberal

:05:02. > :05:08.Democrats fees, but at least they didn't know what was going to come

:05:09. > :05:15.after the election. In this particular case, Mr Cameron didn't

:05:16. > :05:18.know, and they set out to avoid revealing the fact by hiding behind

:05:19. > :05:26.this statement that they would have to make substantial cuts. I believe

:05:27. > :05:30.that those allies tromp all of the constitutional niceties. Weatherbee

:05:31. > :05:37.of financial privilege, or the fatality of amendments. On that

:05:38. > :05:43.basis I support the notion on the table, and the amended notion this

:05:44. > :05:57.evening. The public cannot take this scale of line. MyPoints briefly. I

:05:58. > :06:03.don't want anything that I say to be taken as implying a lack of sympathy

:06:04. > :06:07.with the concerns of those who have spoken about the effects of the

:06:08. > :06:12.government's policy. Like other peers, I have had moving e-mails

:06:13. > :06:16.from many such people who expect to lose benefit to the statutory

:06:17. > :06:21.instrument. I want to confine myself, however, to the

:06:22. > :06:27.constitutional issue. I usually agree with the noble lady lady

:06:28. > :06:31.Thomas about statutory instrument. Is a rare event that the government

:06:32. > :06:35.is defeated on a statutory instrument. It has only happened

:06:36. > :06:41.five times since the war. That does not mean that the house could not do

:06:42. > :06:45.it. A combination here is that this is a statutory instrument about a

:06:46. > :06:51.budgetary matter, which is central to the government's fiscal policy.

:06:52. > :06:55.It is that combination that is unprecedented, and why I think that

:06:56. > :07:04.it would be beyond the taxes up to two full power to defeat the

:07:05. > :07:09.government today. To amend the coming into the standing orders and

:07:10. > :07:14.proceeds to the proceeding House of Lords, which says that the House has

:07:15. > :07:20.resolved that this house reserves its unfettered freedom to vote on

:07:21. > :07:24.any subordinate legislation submitted for its legislation. Is

:07:25. > :07:32.this not subordinate legislation from submitted for our legislation?

:07:33. > :07:34.What I am saying is that the combination of statutory instruments

:07:35. > :07:45.and the fiscal significance of this one are what makes it special. Is

:07:46. > :07:49.the case that, none since 1911, has a government been challenged on a

:07:50. > :08:00.matter of this starch. That establishes what the constitutional

:08:01. > :08:04.reaches of the house implies. The Noble Lord that says no government

:08:05. > :08:10.has been challenged on matters of this it's sort since 1911. 2008, in

:08:11. > :08:15.July, there was a debate in this house on a statutory instrument. The

:08:16. > :08:20.house came to the conclusion, it voted, there was a discussion, it

:08:21. > :08:23.voted against the government and voted down the government's and

:08:24. > :08:29.suggestion. Insisted that any attempt by the government to raise

:08:30. > :08:35.national insurance had to be done by way of primary legislation, and not

:08:36. > :08:39.statutory. Was that not also the case, in which a government was

:08:40. > :08:45.trying to pursue its financial and fiscal policies, among which the

:08:46. > :08:48.opposition voted it down and said that they couldn't do a bite

:08:49. > :08:55.statutory instrument and had to do it by legislation? I will not

:08:56. > :09:06.contest that, which I have not myself considered. The amendment of

:09:07. > :09:13.the noble lady is transparently a fatal motion. She agrees with that,

:09:14. > :09:16.and in my view is outside of your Lordship's constitutional role. I

:09:17. > :09:23.note that my noble friend agrees with that view. The amendments of

:09:24. > :09:33.the noble lady Baroness Hollis, and the lady raise a more subtle issue.

:09:34. > :09:39.They are not fatal. They seek to do for our consideration of the

:09:40. > :09:44.statutory instrument until the government has done certain things

:09:45. > :09:47.specified in the amendments. These include surrendering some of the

:09:48. > :09:54.savings which would be achieved by this measure. Who they are still

:09:55. > :10:02.blocking amendments. I can best demonstrate that as follows. What

:10:03. > :10:09.happens if the government refuses to do what the amendments demand? Will

:10:10. > :10:16.your chips then, refused to consider the statutory instruments for ever?

:10:17. > :10:21.In that case, these amendments blocked the statutory instrument

:10:22. > :10:30.indefinitely. This, in my view, is not within... My Lord, may I point

:10:31. > :10:38.out that the House of Commons has a very similar request before the

:10:39. > :10:43.house for Thursday. That is to say, they want also more information.

:10:44. > :10:48.Conservative MP's do not feel that they have gotten enough information

:10:49. > :10:54.to understand the full applications of these regulations. If the House

:10:55. > :10:58.of Commons votes for more information, in other words don't go

:10:59. > :11:03.ahead until we know what is going on, would the Noble Lord then agreed

:11:04. > :11:10.that actually that should be provided not only for the House of

:11:11. > :11:15.Lords, but for the House of Commons? When the comments ask for more

:11:16. > :11:18.information it should be provided. But the House of Commons has passed

:11:19. > :11:23.the statutory instrument, and they cannot go back on that. Now, the

:11:24. > :11:28.issue is whether the House of Lords should pass it. I believe that

:11:29. > :11:31.however much sympathy of the house should have for the objectives of

:11:32. > :11:35.those who would move these amendments, it would be a

:11:36. > :11:40.constitutional infringement of great gravity to pass the first three of

:11:41. > :11:46.them. It would be wrong on three counts. First, this is a budgetary

:11:47. > :11:53.matter, and it may be up well for matter as well but it's certainly a

:11:54. > :11:56.welfare matter -- it is crucial second, that was explosives in the

:11:57. > :12:02.manifesto on which the government was elected only a short time ago.

:12:03. > :12:09.Third, the statutory instrument has been passed by the House of Commons

:12:10. > :12:12.which has that responsibility in our constitutional arrangement. It has

:12:13. > :12:29.been passed not once, but three times. I cannot find myself

:12:30. > :12:38.persuaded... I'm sorry. He is not addressing the house, and that he is

:12:39. > :12:44.not addressing his experience... I have committed a constitutional

:12:45. > :12:52.impropriety. I don't understand the point that the Noble Lord is making.

:12:53. > :13:01.I am not persuaded by the noble Baroness's argument that this

:13:02. > :13:08.house... I worked in many rules, giving advice, and I know that after

:13:09. > :13:18.this debate there will be many members of the public who ask what

:13:19. > :13:25.on earth was going on in the house? Could the Noble Lord just answer the

:13:26. > :13:34.question, if the House of Lords were today to amend or vote down this

:13:35. > :13:40.statutory instrument, could the government in the comments bring

:13:41. > :13:49.back a 1-word change statutory instrument within the next few days?

:13:50. > :13:56.Would he care to comment? I listened very respectfully who used an

:13:57. > :14:04.expression I cannot understand. Could a Lord Butler explained why it

:14:05. > :14:11.Lord Mackay thought that it would be offensive that the government would

:14:12. > :14:17.choose to bring this item forward in primary legislation? I didn't

:14:18. > :14:25.understand the reasoning, and I'm sure Lord Butler does. My Lords, it

:14:26. > :14:33.is unfair if I may say so for the noble lady to ask me to interpret

:14:34. > :14:37.someone else's statements. I would give the answer that I was going to

:14:38. > :14:45.give about the point made by my noble friend. I can't be persuaded

:14:46. > :14:49.that this house would be failing in its democratic duty if we didn't

:14:50. > :14:52.block this statutory instrument so that the House of Commons could have

:14:53. > :15:06.yet one more debate on it. It has had three already. Order! I am sorry

:15:07. > :15:11.to intervene, but just an observation. The director for the

:15:12. > :15:19.Institute for Government, Peter Riddle, who is greatly respected

:15:20. > :15:28.make the following point. It is long, but I want to read it. I said

:15:29. > :15:45.do the short version. " The promo act of 1911 and 1949... Do not apply

:15:46. > :15:50.to secondary legislation. Order! The house was listening to the Noble

:15:51. > :15:55.Lord Lord Butler. I have been a frustrated to put my points briefly.

:15:56. > :16:00.Let me make one final point. There have been many times in the past

:16:01. > :16:04.when there has been an oppositional majority in your Lordship's house.

:16:05. > :16:11.Particularly when there has been a Labour government. There have been

:16:12. > :16:15.many, many occasions when the opposition has wanted to overturn

:16:16. > :16:23.the government on a fiscal matter. It hasn't happened, and in these

:16:24. > :16:27.cases the opposition recognising the conventions, has exercised

:16:28. > :16:30.self-restraint. It has been a slip, and has stayed within the

:16:31. > :16:37.constitutional conventions. I believe that the house should do so

:16:38. > :16:45.today. My Lords, and responds immediately to what the Lord has

:16:46. > :16:51.said. In July 2008, in more detail, it was a fiscal matter. It was

:16:52. > :16:54.government policy, no doubt, and there was no doubt that what this

:16:55. > :16:59.house demanded that the government should give it up. This house

:17:00. > :17:03.insisted that what the government wanted to do could only be done by

:17:04. > :17:08.primary legislation and not by a statutory instrument. By Lord, and

:17:09. > :17:13.has been before the House before, and house has before. It seems to me

:17:14. > :17:17.that there are three major issues that this house has got to consider

:17:18. > :17:25.today. Firstly, whether not financial privilege applies, the

:17:26. > :17:31.effects of the way in which it has proceeded, and third whether any

:17:32. > :17:38.amends are favourable. Let's start with a constitutional one. I totally

:17:39. > :17:46.reject the statutory instrument made by the Chancellor, to postpone this

:17:47. > :17:51.resolution would be contrary to financial understandings that exist

:17:52. > :17:56.between the two housings -- houses. That is not justified, and I totally

:17:57. > :17:59.reject it. The government could have avoided these constitutional

:18:00. > :18:03.problems if they wanted to. They chose to legislate with this matter

:18:04. > :18:10.in primary rather than secondary legislation. When you open them to

:18:11. > :18:13.include these proposals in the finance Bill? Alternatively, they

:18:14. > :18:21.could have legislated with a sure and separate bill. They chose, a

:18:22. > :18:27.government choice, to do it by secondary legislation. That

:18:28. > :18:32.inevitably curtailed debate here and in the House of Commons particularly

:18:33. > :18:36.in the country. I accept that his been doubt that within a separate

:18:37. > :18:42.place. Inevitably the national discussion been truncated. It has

:18:43. > :18:47.been truncated to the point of extinction. There has been no

:18:48. > :18:50.consultation, there's been no consultation on measures to

:18:51. > :18:55.alleviate the burden the poor, is quite the contrary. None of these

:18:56. > :18:59.issues have been even discussed. We don't know what, if any transitional

:19:00. > :19:09.measures the government might have in mind. The government had not

:19:10. > :19:13.voted for the general election. Considerable efforts to conceal the

:19:14. > :19:20.fact that this was the government's intention when they got reelected --

:19:21. > :19:25.Minister after Minister appeared before the television cameras saying

:19:26. > :19:31.no, no, no, there will be no tax credits. We will tell you what it

:19:32. > :19:36.will be eventually. No word in the conservative manifesto. We are told

:19:37. > :19:44.that in that situation, this house willy-nilly, has got to accept what

:19:45. > :19:48.the government says. What the government are asking us to do is

:19:49. > :20:02.not acceptable. He has set out an alternative policy

:20:03. > :20:10.which the government might have followed. It did not. We are not

:20:11. > :20:14.dealing with the alternative politic -- policy, we are dealing with what

:20:15. > :20:17.actually happened to. What he is saying that that's what the

:20:18. > :20:22.government hasn't seen and done is that they are doing something they

:20:23. > :20:27.do he doesn't like. It not alter the fact that this is a met money

:20:28. > :20:31.matter, and he is seeking this house to overturn a majority in the

:20:32. > :20:48.Commons decision on a money matter. If I may ask, how should I interpret

:20:49. > :20:56.the point of order made on the 21st of October in the other place. ,

:20:57. > :21:00.959. On a point of order, generations of your predecessors

:21:01. > :21:03.defended the privileges of this house, and the greatest privileges

:21:04. > :21:06.of all is the principle of no taxation without representation. We

:21:07. > :21:11.have had a lively debate yesterday on tax credits, and many of us would

:21:12. > :21:14.like to see some movement from the government. Surely it is the elected

:21:15. > :21:20.representatives of the people who decide on tax and spending. The

:21:21. > :21:23.Speaker responded that "I understand entirely, and my own feeling from

:21:24. > :21:30.the chair is that the other place can look after its self. We also can

:21:31. > :21:34.and will look after ourselves. " I think it would be a more dignified

:21:35. > :21:40.for the chair not to be drawn into a public spat. In the final analysis,

:21:41. > :21:53.both houses know the factual positions, and the deposition is

:21:54. > :22:06.what it is. Long-standing. I am not qualified to what is in the mind of

:22:07. > :22:20.Mr Lee's. To expect me to be able to do that -- of course they chose to

:22:21. > :22:24.do it. Why? They chose to do it because they cut off discussion. It

:22:25. > :22:42.meant that they were not accountable By Lords, there was a convention

:22:43. > :22:49.that we didn't in fact vote against a statutory instruments. We do not

:22:50. > :22:51.turn them down. By doing it that way, the government thought that

:22:52. > :23:03.they would... Could they have done it that way

:23:04. > :23:08.because of the act said that they had to do it that way? Would that

:23:09. > :23:12.not be a more proper judgement of what the government did? The act

:23:13. > :23:17.gave them the power to do it, DAX did not compel them to do it. If

:23:18. > :23:25.they wanted to do it by parliament could have been done way. In the

:23:26. > :23:29.normal way, financial privilege would have applied and none of this

:23:30. > :23:37.nonsense would have been created. I have to say, the reason that the

:23:38. > :23:45.government chose to legislate in this way because it was bound to

:23:46. > :23:53.create conflict. That was the point of the exercise. I want to say a

:23:54. > :24:03.word about disability 2008. -- this bill. This house limited the power

:24:04. > :24:07.of the local government to raise the upper threshold so that it could

:24:08. > :24:11.only be done through primary legislation. These two cases are

:24:12. > :24:15.almost identical. In each case the government were trying to order tax

:24:16. > :24:21.provisions by statutory regulation. In each case this house was standing

:24:22. > :24:26.in its way, and I don't see any real difference between to. The

:24:27. > :24:35.difference between the two, is that 2008... I think that is an important

:24:36. > :24:41.that he is referring to a particular previous case, and is doing so in a

:24:42. > :24:46.way that I do not believe is accurate, because of the examples

:24:47. > :24:51.that he is citing was it to appease a primary legislation. It was not to

:24:52. > :24:56.a statutory instrument. It was not statutory instrument, it was a piece

:24:57. > :25:01.of primary legislation. An amendment was properly tabled to that piece of

:25:02. > :25:07.primary legislation in this house. This House voted on it. This house

:25:08. > :25:13.then sent the bill back to the place in a normal way, and the House of

:25:14. > :25:18.Commons decided that it would invoke financial privilege. That was the

:25:19. > :25:20.end of the matter. Is wrong for the Noble Lord to draw direct

:25:21. > :25:27.comparisons in the way that is doing. The reason why, my Lords, is

:25:28. > :25:33.that when asked about the relevance of the 19 love acts, it is quite

:25:34. > :25:37.clear that secondary deflation is not covered by some of the

:25:38. > :25:42.conventions that have been raised in debate during this house. What is at

:25:43. > :25:54.risk here is the financial primacy of the comments. I hear what she

:25:55. > :25:58.said, but to this I had to say as far as the financial privileges as

:25:59. > :26:05.the House of Commons is concerned. If this house

:26:06. > :26:17.it does not mean that it is dead. My lord, it needs that it is delayed

:26:18. > :26:22.and implementation of it is delayed. That is probably accepted by most

:26:23. > :26:31.people, that is not a knapsack on this resolution and. At the house

:26:32. > :26:37.were to do that... I am not in favour of voting for the liberal

:26:38. > :26:41.Democrat amendment, because I don't think that voting for statutory

:26:42. > :26:48.instruments is a good thing for this house to do. I don't think I've ever

:26:49. > :26:52.done it. I do think that a motion to postpone it until the other house

:26:53. > :26:59.has a chance to look at it in the light of the evidence that has now

:27:00. > :27:19.risen, that makes sense. I hope very much that when it comes down to it

:27:20. > :27:24.that is what happens. My Lords, I want to repeat a few words that he

:27:25. > :27:30.has just said. I have been listening to this debate, and I listened to

:27:31. > :27:37.his argument. He persuaded me that the motion of describing the

:27:38. > :27:46.legislation would raise all kinds of constituent matters. He do to

:27:47. > :27:53.baronesses are declining to consider the draft legislation. You are tying

:27:54. > :27:57.our hands, because when they produced this legislation we will

:27:58. > :28:11.have no choice but to approve the legislation. I for one think that if

:28:12. > :28:15.the Chancellor is... We are giving him advice. If we are giving him

:28:16. > :28:22.advice he is going to take it. I for one think that the baronesses

:28:23. > :28:33.motions are not fatal, they are simply delaying. Might noble friend,

:28:34. > :28:41.the prelate, once the government to consult on relations. Well, it is a

:28:42. > :28:45.question of trust. If you are not going to have the facts right before

:28:46. > :28:51.you before you approve this particular is legislation, you'd be

:28:52. > :28:55.forgetting your legislative responsibilities. If you are

:28:56. > :29:03.revising in the chamber, surely you must do it. They may even be glad

:29:04. > :29:10.that that fact have been bandied around have become clear, and

:29:11. > :29:19.they're not that important. For me, like Baroness Hollis, I think that

:29:20. > :29:22.she outlined clearly consequences of this hasty way of reducing and

:29:23. > :29:27.cutting the stacks credits. The people are going to suffer most, and

:29:28. > :29:32.those who up to now who want those tax credits in work and imagine

:29:33. > :29:45.managing to get things in order. That is not good. By introducing a

:29:46. > :29:51.living wage. At first, which I trusted to be calibrated soon by the

:29:52. > :29:54.living wage condition. What is my basis for saying this? You all know

:29:55. > :30:01.that two years ago I chaired a commission that brought together

:30:02. > :30:06.people from business, industry, society, I'm how we could actually a

:30:07. > :30:12.to create a brilliant way of dealing with this particular difficulty. How

:30:13. > :30:18.can we tackle this? We looked closely and objectively at the cost

:30:19. > :30:22.of living wage, and let me give you the evidence that is in the report.

:30:23. > :30:28.The evidence pointed that the living wage is good for employees,

:30:29. > :30:33.business, the economy, and if the local people. Employers are already

:30:34. > :30:37.adopting a range policy and our listing thousands of people out of

:30:38. > :30:44.working policy -- poverty. They're claiming tax credits, and they could

:30:45. > :30:53.gain up to four billion a year in a increased tax revenues. That is a

:30:54. > :30:56.much neater way of doing it. Businesses are reporting

:30:57. > :31:05.productivity increases improvement in the area. The truth is that you

:31:06. > :31:11.and I lose out on... Billions of pounds are being spent every year

:31:12. > :31:30.when opponent finances are tight. Where inequality grows, economics

:31:31. > :31:36.was not always divorced from our own ethical considerations. Adam Smith,

:31:37. > :31:42.the father of modern economics, was a professor of moral philosophy. To

:31:43. > :31:56.him and two other philosophers, it seemed to me that the issue that

:31:57. > :32:01.we are facing here is not that economies are divided from wars at

:32:02. > :32:06.ethics, but that the decisions that we take are affected by the men and

:32:07. > :32:10.women who want to get out of poverty, want to get out of

:32:11. > :32:14.depending on tax credits, but actually doing it properly and

:32:15. > :32:17.fairly. Britain has struggled through challenging times. I hope

:32:18. > :32:22.that the work that is being done by government, business done and the

:32:23. > :32:28.people of the UK will take a huge step forward. The minimum wage, when

:32:29. > :32:35.introduced, did not go far enough. Let me give you some research, which

:32:36. > :32:39.to me seems to suggest that you as a legislative body have considered

:32:40. > :32:47.delaying so that defects may be brought up. There has been a rising

:32:48. > :32:53.demand for constituent credit. Many report their need to borrow. This

:32:54. > :33:00.makes credit month -- worsen the credit winter months. Do want people

:33:01. > :33:08.who are depending on credits to beat her into the loan sharks of this

:33:09. > :33:17.country? Britain is at risk of becoming a place where the have and

:33:18. > :33:25.have-nots have their own woes, when the... I want to listen more, and I

:33:26. > :33:37.hope that this decision to delay ties our hands, allows us a chance

:33:38. > :33:38.to take advice, and almost we are saying we pass it and that we agree

:33:39. > :33:50.with it. The 20 13th summit but are, and

:33:51. > :33:56.actually says that yes, over 70 years, there's something going on,

:33:57. > :34:02.but many low-income households are still much worse off than in 2008,

:34:03. > :34:12.leaving them struggling to make ends meet, rely on benefits, and for me

:34:13. > :34:19.this means that poverty wages... The government is about deficit

:34:20. > :34:30.reduction, and one way will not actually leave men or women in the

:34:31. > :34:39.hands of loan sharks. My lords, Dunn my lords, I just to point to bring

:34:40. > :34:46.in. First, it was my proposals in the Social Security legislation of

:34:47. > :34:52.1986 which led to the reduction of tax credit, which was a success to

:34:53. > :34:56.keep Joseph's family Sock, and of course the former one of tax

:34:57. > :35:03.credits. Then of course, it became a Treasury matter, and went to tax

:35:04. > :35:07.credits. But obviously, I've got us a considerable sympathy with the

:35:08. > :35:14.general case that is being put in the debate. Second, I was about six

:35:15. > :35:20.years secretary of health and Social Security, and as such, no one's idea

:35:21. > :35:31.of natural support of the Treasury, and all their schemes. ... LAUGHTER

:35:32. > :35:36.Various chances and chief secretaries, might do that. Perhaps

:35:37. > :35:41.I could add just in parentheses in this heated debate, throughout my

:35:42. > :35:48.time that while I was doing Social Security, my shadow Minister who

:35:49. > :35:52.died last week, we did not agree on very much, but he was a very

:35:53. > :36:03.honourable and totally sincere man, and he will be very much missed. My

:36:04. > :36:08.lords,... My lords, I spent three months every year debating the

:36:09. > :36:12.Treasury with proposals that they have put forward, and they put

:36:13. > :36:23.forward on my budget. One counterargument I never used was

:36:24. > :36:26.that the specific cost cutting measures, not in the manifesto,

:36:27. > :36:31.frankly I have a lot of trouble keeping the Treasury to recognise

:36:32. > :36:35.what was in the manifesto. Every government introduces measures not

:36:36. > :36:40.contained in the manifesto, and the last thing I did was to introduce

:36:41. > :36:42.the dock labour scheme, and there was not a word of that in the

:36:43. > :36:48.manifesto. Back in my old Social Security death, under pressure from

:36:49. > :36:56.the Treasury, that was the whole basis of measuring inflation and the

:36:57. > :37:01.cost of well over ?1 billion. The reduction in benefits bending will

:37:02. > :37:06.always be unpopular. I found that in the Cabinet, everyone was in favour

:37:07. > :37:11.of the general argument that when it came to the specific, they always

:37:12. > :37:18.said please, not that way. And frankly, I have decided that I think

:37:19. > :37:23.the conservative manifesto in 2015, spelled out what is intended with

:37:24. > :37:27.more clarity in this area, then any manifesto I can remember on either

:37:28. > :37:33.side. The government said in words, that they would have -- find ?12

:37:34. > :37:42.billion from welfare savings, and that is... Hang on. Leverages finish

:37:43. > :37:48.my point. That is a good deal, more specific than any manifesto I had

:37:49. > :37:55.anything to do it, myself, and indeed any manifesto which I ever

:37:56. > :38:05.came across. I give way. Does he think it was right then for Mr

:38:06. > :38:10.Cameron to rule out tax credit cuts at the time of the general election

:38:11. > :38:14.to think he was right to do so? I think we have been around this

:38:15. > :38:17.before, and the Noble Lord has made this point several times, but more

:38:18. > :38:24.to the point, and has not considered now three times in the House of

:38:25. > :38:28.Commons, and has been rejected, in fact, I think he was talking but

:38:29. > :38:36.considering child tax credit, not the whole web. And what the

:38:37. > :38:43.manifesto Alston made clear in words that the pension ratings would be

:38:44. > :38:47.protected in other words, that area of the retirement would be fenced. I

:38:48. > :38:52.don't think there was any controversy about that. But, but

:38:53. > :38:59.obviously that meant is that I bring fencing pensioners benefits, they

:39:00. > :39:03.now had the field of very existentially with a ?12 billion

:39:04. > :39:10.cuts followed. Not everyone will agree with that, and indeed, my

:39:11. > :39:13.major reason for introducing family credit was concerned for low income

:39:14. > :39:21.working families with children, but even then it was clear that what was

:39:22. > :39:26.happening was that pensioners were increasing in that. And that was not

:39:27. > :39:32.actually being put forward by the low income families. But, what I do

:39:33. > :39:36.say is that I do not think that anyone can imagine how spending on

:39:37. > :39:41.tax credits was to escalate in the way that it did. Tax credits are

:39:42. > :39:50.being tripled in the ten years up until 2010, and was estimated to be

:39:51. > :39:57.about ?13 billion a year. Doubt was a long way from the original game.

:39:58. > :40:01.But I accept, my lords, that none of this was the fault of the families

:40:02. > :40:05.who are struggling to make ends meet, often in very difficult

:40:06. > :40:12.circumstances. I totally accept and agree with that. I therefore welcome

:40:13. > :40:19.the measures of the Leader of the House, where she said that these

:40:20. > :40:26.matters would now be cleared, and again, I would hope that when they

:40:27. > :40:30.are, we can find room to look particularly at the petition of

:40:31. > :40:39.families with children, and that it seems to be is a particular

:40:40. > :40:42.priority. And the emotion is precisely upon this. Were the

:40:43. > :40:51.government to do this or not, and this is the point, it is frankly a

:40:52. > :40:55.matter... Who is asked on this, and other financial matters, that the

:40:56. > :41:07.House of Commons and not to others. The common sense position,... I will

:41:08. > :41:11.give weight. My lord, I hate to interrupt, but he said clearly that

:41:12. > :41:16.the leader had talked the House that these measures would be considered.

:41:17. > :41:20.Now I think I listened quite naturally to all of this, and I'm

:41:21. > :41:32.not sure I heard that. I'm very happy to be corrected. I give that

:41:33. > :41:36.to the leader of to put those into specific words, but I do not think

:41:37. > :41:44.that is not an unfair representation of what she said. We are, my lords,

:41:45. > :41:49.the unelected House, the other place is the elected one. Measure has

:41:50. > :41:58.Artie been voted, on twice, if not three times, and we cannot have this

:41:59. > :42:03.trying to impose its will on ?500 of savings to be in if I can say if

:42:04. > :42:10.there's one thing to the members of the House of Commons, who are here,

:42:11. > :42:13.I do not remember when we were ordered in the House of Commons

:42:14. > :42:18.together, and I'm saying we must give more financial power over what

:42:19. > :42:24.happens over the House of Lords. I do not remember at any stage of that

:42:25. > :42:30.point being made, and I do not remember that being made by anyone

:42:31. > :42:39.in any one party, on this particular position. I think a certain degree

:42:40. > :42:48.of humility are in order. My lords,... Does this not show that

:42:49. > :42:53.our powers of statutory instruments are far too drastic? As was pointed

:42:54. > :42:59.out and report on conventions, and it would be bad if we gave up the

:43:00. > :43:02.power to accept or reject a statutory instrument in exchange for

:43:03. > :43:12.maybe two amendments, which would deal with Noble Lord, Lord Lawson's

:43:13. > :43:17.point, we could not oppose it. There may be a lifeboat out of this, if we

:43:18. > :43:21.could actually get something out of it, in the way we're dealing with

:43:22. > :43:27.secondary legislation, with all of this in the future? I think that is

:43:28. > :43:31.something that we can consider for the future, and on first hearing,

:43:32. > :43:35.sounds like an attractive proposition. But we are considering

:43:36. > :43:43.what we're now, and not for the future. If I may make this last

:43:44. > :43:47.point. In spite of some of the criticism, and the attack, now being

:43:48. > :43:53.directed at this house, it is my view that this house carries out a

:43:54. > :43:57.very valuable function, a serious function, and the members I meet

:43:58. > :44:02.your day by day are hard-working, not just on the floor of the House,

:44:03. > :44:07.but in select committees. I do think we need to recognise one

:44:08. > :44:12.common-sense thing. Long as this is an appointed house, we must accept a

:44:13. > :44:17.limitation on our powers, particularly in financial properties

:44:18. > :44:21.Gabi to ignore those limitations, that is not in the interest and not

:44:22. > :44:25.in the interest in the House of Lords, and it is not in the interest

:44:26. > :44:27.of the public. It cannot be justified, and that is why I will be

:44:28. > :44:47.voting against against these amendments. My lords,... My lords, I

:44:48. > :44:55.just rise to said that we have been going at this now for well over two

:44:56. > :44:58.and a half hours, and many points, and there have been strong arguments

:44:59. > :45:06.on each side of the argument. And many points have been made on the

:45:07. > :45:13.speeches which have not only been lengthy, but mighty. I find it

:45:14. > :45:18.difficult to conceive that there are any more arguments that could be

:45:19. > :45:25.deployed LAUGHTER On either side of the argument, as I

:45:26. > :45:29.would submit that it... We have reached the point where we need to

:45:30. > :45:40.cut to the point, where we make up our minds, and it is time to come to

:45:41. > :45:45.a conclusion. My lords, I accept the point of the Noble Lord, but if I

:45:46. > :45:49.may I think I have one or two points that have not been made before, and

:45:50. > :45:53.if the House would indulge me, I would be grateful for the

:45:54. > :45:57.opportunity to do so. I will not go over the case against the

:45:58. > :46:03.regulations and their current form, that has been argued powerfully

:46:04. > :46:09.tonight from all benches, and the need for reconsideration, I think,

:46:10. > :46:13.we could almost pass. The issue before us is whether it is

:46:14. > :46:20.constitutionally appropriate for the House of Lords to use its most

:46:21. > :46:27.potent, most well known weapon of delay. In respect of these

:46:28. > :46:32.regulations. Very powerful speeches were made from bishops, and correct

:46:33. > :46:40.that I'd just say that I'm delighted that the right Reverend is here for

:46:41. > :46:44.today's debate, and I should either born or can soul, but it is not

:46:45. > :46:53.always this. LAUGHTER However, I hope that the bench and

:46:54. > :46:58.others will consider that it might be appropriate for the House to use

:46:59. > :47:04.its powers of delay tonight, and I favour the motion in the name of the

:47:05. > :47:11.noble lady. Because it gives us an alternative to eight fatal amendment

:47:12. > :47:18.on a matter which I think is of high political importance. It gives us

:47:19. > :47:26.the opportunity of delay, and asking the Commons and through than the

:47:27. > :47:29.government, to think again. Now, the noble lady and the Leader of the

:47:30. > :47:32.House, said when she introduced the debate, that she had seen the

:47:33. > :47:38.Chancellor of the Exchequer today, and I think that the words are ever

:47:39. > :47:44.used were that he would listen very carefully, to what was said in the

:47:45. > :47:47.House today. I accept that. I have to say that having had the privilege

:47:48. > :47:51.of being in both houses, that I think he will listen even more

:47:52. > :47:55.carefully to what is said in the House of Commons, on Thursday. And I

:47:56. > :48:02.would like him to have the opportunity to do that, so I have

:48:03. > :48:12.asked myself whether the fact that this is innovative, in terms of...

:48:13. > :48:18.Was something that we should therefore enjoy. My answer is no. If

:48:19. > :48:21.we have the power to kill a statutory instrument and send it

:48:22. > :48:30.back to base, then surely, we have the power to delay a statutory

:48:31. > :48:34.instrument, and weight for that reconsideration. On the question of

:48:35. > :48:39.whether this is being discussed in another place, absolutely I

:48:40. > :48:42.understand that. Doesn't need consideration? Yes, I think it does.

:48:43. > :48:48.And actually, my lords, every time we discuss an amendment bill that

:48:49. > :48:53.has gone through the House of Commons, it is probably being voted

:48:54. > :48:58.on three times. My second reading, the committee, and on the report.

:48:59. > :49:05.That does not inhibit us the first time around, I'm saying will you

:49:06. > :49:10.please look again. For me, the only question to make is the question of

:49:11. > :49:15.financial privilege. And, I hesitate to cross swords with either Noble

:49:16. > :49:21.Lord, or my noble friend, but I think this situation is not as

:49:22. > :49:32.clear-cut as they set out. If this were a finance Bill, we would have

:49:33. > :49:37.no part in. If it were a taxation as side, it would only go to the House

:49:38. > :49:46.of Commons. But it is not. This is an essay under "ordinary

:49:47. > :49:51.legislation." And under that, on this bill, this house considers

:49:52. > :49:55.amendments and sends them to the House of Commons. The House of

:49:56. > :50:03.Commons can then do what it likes to do. It can accept them, it can offer

:50:04. > :50:11.a compromise, it can reject them, or it can invoke financial privilege.

:50:12. > :50:18.But that is after this house has asked them to think again. I think

:50:19. > :50:23.again that that is the best answer been an analogy with the Finance

:50:24. > :50:28.Act. This is the statutory instrument that is under a piece of

:50:29. > :50:37.welfare legislation, not under a finance Bill. To me,... I am very

:50:38. > :50:44.grateful to the noble lady, but surely there is an analogy. There is

:50:45. > :50:48.an analogy with finance bills, and finance bills to come to your

:50:49. > :50:52.Lordship's house, but we pass them without amendment, because that is

:50:53. > :50:56.the Constitutional convention. That is similar to what we're being asked

:50:57. > :51:00.to do on the statutory instruments. I have to say to the Noble Lord

:51:01. > :51:06.Butler, that the financial convention, and not has not stayed

:51:07. > :51:09.absolutely the same for 300 years, the financial convention was that

:51:10. > :51:14.this house did not think about the finance Bill, or indeed economic

:51:15. > :51:18.measures. In 2000... In the year 2000, we set up the economic affairs

:51:19. > :51:25.committee, the House of Commons went into freeform about encroachment on

:51:26. > :51:33.financial privilege. Even more so, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown at

:51:34. > :51:36.the time, was incandescent at the idea that there should be a

:51:37. > :51:43.subcommittee looking at the finance Bill. In fact, those things happen,

:51:44. > :51:49.and the world did not collapse, financial privilege, the right of

:51:50. > :51:55.the comments to have the final say, was not impeded. To my mind, this is

:51:56. > :51:59.the matter of very high and clear-cut politics, and it is a

:52:00. > :52:07.matter of very nuanced constitutional significance. And

:52:08. > :52:14.overall, I believe that the power of this house is most important power,

:52:15. > :52:21.while leaving the last word to the other place, is to ask the other

:52:22. > :52:22.place to think again. And I would urge the House to use that power

:52:23. > :52:35.this evening. My lords, this has been quite an

:52:36. > :52:41.extraordinary debate. I think it is unusual that your Lordship's house

:52:42. > :52:43.finds itself at the centre of such a vivacious policy, and

:52:44. > :52:49.constitutionally as it does today. It is also extraordinarily unusual

:52:50. > :52:54.that for a matter that affects a Department of work and pensions, and

:52:55. > :53:01.the Treasury, we have no Treasury or DW key ministers dressing your

:53:02. > :53:05.Lordship's house today. I can understand why the government feels

:53:06. > :53:08.more comfortable talking about constitutional issues on this

:53:09. > :53:13.regard, than it does about the impact of this policy. That is

:53:14. > :53:17.something that we all understand. But it was, again, extraordinary

:53:18. > :53:23.when the noble lady, the Leader of the House, supported an amendment to

:53:24. > :53:27.the government's policy, when she supported the Bishop's amendment. It

:53:28. > :53:33.seems quite in the extraordinary. My lord, this is unprecedented today.

:53:34. > :53:40.And, I think it is good to see the Noble Lord... Thank you for giving

:53:41. > :53:46.way. I think it is important, because she has interpreted from

:53:47. > :53:52.what I had said, incorrectly, I was very clear that the government does

:53:53. > :53:58.not any amendment to its motion. What I said, was that the right

:53:59. > :54:03.Reverend had brought forward his concerns in a way which we have

:54:04. > :54:10.consistently with the conventions and proper roles of this house. I

:54:11. > :54:16.think that is a bit of an angel's on a pinhead defence. I think when he

:54:17. > :54:22.took on the role as the defence minister he said his job was not to

:54:23. > :54:25.defend... My lords, we are being asked to prove the government's tax

:54:26. > :54:31.credit. We are unable to do so today, and I think the reasons why

:54:32. > :54:37.it had been very carefully laid out. There is a pernicious regulations,

:54:38. > :54:42.but do enormous damage, because as sleep they could dramatically cut

:54:43. > :54:46.the incomes of the poorest in society, and those that are working

:54:47. > :54:51.hard, and they're doing at the government says is the right thing,

:54:52. > :54:55.and they have now about 3 million people that will be affected by

:54:56. > :54:58.these cuts. Like many other lords, I've had e-mails and letters from

:54:59. > :55:05.those who are likely to be affected. From nurses, teachers, cleaners,

:55:06. > :55:10.firefighters, people working hard trying to raise families, and they

:55:11. > :55:15.are terrified of what lies before them. They do not know how they are

:55:16. > :55:23.going to cope. And, I think the noble lady got e-mails about those

:55:24. > :55:30.with disabilities, and have been moved into work and finding

:55:31. > :55:35.something for them. Another baroness spoke today, and the House was

:55:36. > :55:43.silent. We could heard a pin drop. As we heard these cuts will really

:55:44. > :55:46.mean and the impact they will have on people across this country. And I

:55:47. > :55:50.think when I say to the noble lady, the House was shocked and upset

:55:51. > :55:58.about the information she provided today, but she also provided a way

:55:59. > :56:03.through. And, the Noble Lord Lawson, said tax credits have increased at

:56:04. > :56:06.?30 billion, and they have. That is part of their success, because

:56:07. > :56:12.obviously we have seen the income support reduced as people went into

:56:13. > :56:16.work, because they no longer need income support, but they were

:56:17. > :56:20.receiving tax credits. That was a successive measures. As people moved

:56:21. > :56:25.into work, bed tax credits to reflect their consensus, and liver

:56:26. > :56:29.was then told the way out of poverty is work. That is because people in

:56:30. > :56:38.tax credit have done. That have moved into work. It may be that...

:56:39. > :56:42.To lose ?35 and ?30 a week from income. But for a lot of people out

:56:43. > :56:49.there, that ?25 or ?35 a week is devastating. Indians not putting in

:56:50. > :56:55.money for the heater when it gets cold. It means that those kinds of

:56:56. > :57:01.choices that we should never place on families. My lords, it is a

:57:02. > :57:06.highly contentious area, it is the policy that is important. Now,

:57:07. > :57:10.having said that, I think there are conventional issues and

:57:11. > :57:14.constitutional issues that noble Lords have raised, and I've given

:57:15. > :57:19.some concern. I have to say to the Noble Lord, it would of course, as

:57:20. > :57:23.we have word, normally be expected for measures of the major and

:57:24. > :57:28.magnitude of this, to be introduced by primary legislation. As the

:57:29. > :57:32.government bill, go through the stages, have the opportunity to be

:57:33. > :57:36.debated, have amendments put to it, and voted on. And we have

:57:37. > :57:40.opportunities to make revisions, these are the concerns that were

:57:41. > :57:45.raised. One has to wonder why the government did not take that route,

:57:46. > :57:48.because they can apply for financial privilege, but they've chosen to

:57:49. > :57:56.deal with this measure for statutory instrument. My lords,... I'm sorry

:57:57. > :58:03.to interrupt, but we did hear from the Noble Lord, McKay, that this

:58:04. > :58:07.came as the result of the Secretary of legislation from the tax credits

:58:08. > :58:13.legislation, introduced by another Lord. As a result, this is a natural

:58:14. > :58:17.progression from that piece of legislation. So I find it difficult

:58:18. > :58:21.to understand whether the noble lady could explain why that was wrong. I

:58:22. > :58:26.can help certainly. In 2002, the legislation went through a lot of

:58:27. > :58:31.amendments to tax credits legislation made by statutory

:58:32. > :58:40.instrument, delegated direct -- legislation,... Could be applied.

:58:41. > :58:46.But major policy changes would not normally be made in any sort of

:58:47. > :58:51.things by this kind of regulation. Furthermore, as I said in my

:58:52. > :58:56.intervention to Lawson, the legislation itself in 2002, was not

:58:57. > :58:59.itself subject to financial privilege. Been out of the

:59:00. > :59:04.government saying that statutory legislation follows off of that, and

:59:05. > :59:08.should be subject to financial privilege. So I did just the

:59:09. > :59:14.concerns that global has died noble lady has raised. I'm so sorry to

:59:15. > :59:20.interrupt. But I think it is an important point for the House to

:59:21. > :59:24.understand that the original bill in 2002 tax credits act, was not

:59:25. > :59:29.certified as a money bill. Because it included changes to the

:59:30. > :59:34.administration of the welfare system. Had just been about

:59:35. > :59:39.financial measures that we are debating, then it would probably

:59:40. > :59:43.have been certified as an amendment to be but it was the addition of

:59:44. > :59:51.administration that made it not to be certified as that. I took those

:59:52. > :00:01.two bills to this house, and I can tell the noble lady, such

:00:02. > :00:07.considerations never arose. ... Aborted because certification of the

:00:08. > :00:14.bill is done by the Speaker. She makes my point for me, that major

:00:15. > :00:20.issues like this, major changes, are undertaken in primary legislation,

:00:21. > :00:24.but let's leave that to one side as it may. Anybody out and the real

:00:25. > :00:28.world listening to us talking today would wonder what on earth we are on

:00:29. > :00:33.about, primary legislation, secondary legislation, affirmative

:00:34. > :00:38.and negative, actually what really matters is the impact it has on

:00:39. > :00:44.applying common sense approaches, and what is before us today. We know

:00:45. > :00:53.as parliamentarians that at size are more normally use for that specific

:00:54. > :00:57.detail, issues... Already approved and while. And, as I've said, we

:00:58. > :01:04.very properly use that kind of normal upgrade and tax credits, and

:01:05. > :01:12.I think a I made the point about 2002 earlier. This proposal before

:01:13. > :01:17.us today is way beyond that normal kind of operate. It is a major

:01:18. > :01:20.policy change, that the government was not promised not to do, but it

:01:21. > :01:27.is a significant and major policy change. The route the government has

:01:28. > :01:31.chosen is not the wrong route, but there are consequences of taking

:01:32. > :01:34.that, if the government chose a truncated process, and said not to

:01:35. > :01:39.have that for consideration of the House of Lords, at the same time

:01:40. > :01:41.allows this house so the normal constitutional procedures of your

:01:42. > :01:45.large APPLAUSE Debate and discuss it, and debate and discuss the kind

:01:46. > :01:51.of amendments that would have before us today. This is not a fatal

:01:52. > :01:56.amendment, whatever the noble labour -- noble lady and her colleagues may

:01:57. > :01:59.think. We have made numerous references, she's shaking her head,

:02:00. > :02:03.but the evidence is there. It is very clear-cut. Now, if the

:02:04. > :02:08.government has gone down normally, we would not be here today. There

:02:09. > :02:11.would have been for the debates in the House of Commons, with MPs, and

:02:12. > :02:19.I think MPs from across the House who privately and publicly as well

:02:20. > :02:25.admitted that this goes too far to quickly, and causes too much harm.

:02:26. > :02:30.Now, I think the motion by Miss Hollis is what I refer to as a

:02:31. > :02:36.common sense approach. That can really make a difference. It is in

:02:37. > :02:39.line with what mode -- most people in this contrasting four, 60% of the

:02:40. > :02:43.population today are reporting to work to see a U-turn, or changing

:02:44. > :02:48.this policy, and that is what the noble lady is seeking to do. It

:02:49. > :02:53.calls on this house to reject these proposals as they stand, and for

:02:54. > :02:56.ministers to come back with proposals or schemes to protect

:02:57. > :03:01.those already given tax credits for at least three years. That is all of

:03:02. > :03:06.them. In the past, -- if this were to pass, what happens next? To take

:03:07. > :03:13.his proposal away, and reconsider that. The government can afford to

:03:14. > :03:16.proposals for the consideration. He iterated that it disappears into the

:03:17. > :03:20.ether. The government is committed to doing something, and we can bring

:03:21. > :03:23.back the proposals tear lordships House, because we're working on a

:03:24. > :03:26.private legislation if you wish. If it felt to be anything back at all,

:03:27. > :03:30.it would mean the government could not proceed with these cuts, and

:03:31. > :03:35.they would have to take another route, and reconsider the policy. No

:03:36. > :03:39.government is right all the time. Best rice -- and this house is right

:03:40. > :03:47.to ask that and have it reconsider, think again, pause,...

:03:48. > :03:53.Hill nobody can compel the government to do what the motion and

:03:54. > :03:58.says. If the government does not than the House of Lords is refusing

:03:59. > :04:06.to consider this hot this indefinitely. Government wants to do

:04:07. > :04:10.nothing. The government would have us believe, what is hinted at, is

:04:11. > :04:15.that it is happy to look at things again. I do not accept his argument

:04:16. > :04:20.on that. What is clear that might noble friend's a minute would force

:04:21. > :04:25.the government to look again. They would have to look at this issue

:04:26. > :04:29.again and see where they can make significant changes to protect those

:04:30. > :04:37.who are currently terrified of the cuts to their income. My Lords, I

:04:38. > :04:40.think that this is not a fatal apartment, it does not block the

:04:41. > :04:48.government plans, and allows them to reconsider. What we have is a

:04:49. > :04:53.constitutional duty to scrutinize, examine, and challenge. When the

:04:54. > :04:59.government has clearly got it wrong they must think again. We were

:05:00. > :05:02.sparring partners at a distance today, and even those voting with

:05:03. > :05:06.the government tonight say that I have grave concerns about the

:05:07. > :05:11.policy, I want to see change. The honourable Lady has to know that

:05:12. > :05:15.they are voting because she is trying to make this a constitutional

:05:16. > :05:23.issue, not because they can't be tax credit. We are given an opportunity

:05:24. > :05:27.to address the concerns that have been expressed by peers and members

:05:28. > :05:32.of Parliament of both parties, including very senior members, and

:05:33. > :05:39.including those on the bench behind her. I want to address the question

:05:40. > :05:43.of why he the motion has not been put forward like the Liberal

:05:44. > :05:48.Democrats have? I think that in policy terms there is little between

:05:49. > :05:52.us on this issue. I think that it is significant that a fatal motion was

:05:53. > :06:00.only tabled after government had threatened retaliation to -- if the

:06:01. > :06:04.Lordship's House amended the cuts. I think they let the government off

:06:05. > :06:08.the hook a bit because there are more talking about constitutional

:06:09. > :06:12.issues. I think that the important issue before us today is that

:06:13. > :06:18.looking at how we can protect people from what the government has

:06:19. > :06:23.proposed. My one regret is that we love the focus to be off the issue

:06:24. > :06:28.and onto the Constitution. The government, having won the ball in

:06:29. > :06:31.the comments, quickly returned with new primary registration --

:06:32. > :06:38.legislation to avoid consideration to your Lordship soused. We believe

:06:39. > :06:43.that's is the only consideration that can lead to considerable

:06:44. > :06:47.change. The clamour of voices call them to think again, and that is the

:06:48. > :06:52.right role for your Lordship's House to take. Those voices are clamoring,

:06:53. > :06:58.not just here in Parliament, but in the children's society, think

:06:59. > :07:03.tanks, as well as newspapers, who are poor on government. We have had

:07:04. > :07:05.to think of the arguments as to whether this oversteps our

:07:06. > :07:17.constitutional authority. It does not. I will give way. Could she tell

:07:18. > :07:27.us how much the ladies per puzzle would cost? She is very keen to

:07:28. > :07:35.tell. I had hoped that he had out would in his courteous way refer to

:07:36. > :07:38.that the savings would come from the government automatically by the rise

:07:39. > :07:41.in living wage of which three quarters of a billion each and every

:07:42. > :07:45.year a cruise back to the government. Secondly, by the fact

:07:46. > :07:51.that new claimants due to tax credits are not covered by -- and

:07:52. > :07:57.third because the national office says that by 2019 over 90% of those

:07:58. > :08:02.tax credits will be on universal credit, where they will have the

:08:03. > :08:05.cuts. The government will have matching savings which probably

:08:06. > :08:12.exceed the Barakat said that the government demands. My Lords, I

:08:13. > :08:20.think that the point that the Noble Lord he makes... LAUGHTER date the

:08:21. > :08:26.point that she makes is that this is a choice for the government, not a

:08:27. > :08:31.necessity. I think that what we have seen over the last week, and it has

:08:32. > :08:35.lightened all of us on the government reluctance to accept

:08:36. > :08:46.challenge or proper scrutiny, there is no constitutional crisis looming

:08:47. > :08:51.adult. -- at all. The prime minister has not dealt with a very serious

:08:52. > :08:55.problems with this task are the policy. In the last Labour

:08:56. > :09:01.government, we lost dozens of votes here in the House of Lords on a

:09:02. > :09:11.range of issues. I'm at 18 -- on 18 -- on one Ko we accepted and moved

:09:12. > :09:15.on. There was no point that this official opposition does not accept

:09:16. > :09:19.the right of the government's legislation. It has to do so

:09:20. > :09:23.properly, and must do a properly on getting things right all of the

:09:24. > :09:29.time. On this case, we should really believe that the government has got

:09:30. > :09:33.it wrong. I have to say that the threats that have been made to the

:09:34. > :09:38.House of Lords as an institution is nothing more than Parliamentary

:09:39. > :09:43.Bouvier. Threats to suspend the House of Lords, to cut borrowings,

:09:44. > :09:48.do nothing to address the issues before us, and have given rise to

:09:49. > :09:55.concerns. There is a need for true reform to your Lordship soused. --

:09:56. > :09:59.house. Those threats have nothing to do with reform, and everything to do

:10:00. > :10:04.with the government not wanting to be challenged, and not wanting to

:10:05. > :10:10.think again. My Lords, I think that my final point is that this is a

:10:11. > :10:14.common sense what to do things. This hostile to the issue, it considers

:10:15. > :10:18.that, it think that the government has got it wrong, so we should send

:10:19. > :10:23.it back to the government and urge them to rethink and comes back with

:10:24. > :10:28.something significantly better at that doesn't harm and create

:10:29. > :10:31.enormous fear in those people in work who are struggling to make ends

:10:32. > :10:36.meet who are terrified of the letters that are going to come into

:10:37. > :10:42.their letterboxes near Christmas. Will not exceed our authority, but

:10:43. > :10:51.neither will we be cowed into neglecting our responsibilities to

:10:52. > :10:54.making the government accountable. My Lords, the privilege of falls to

:10:55. > :10:59.me as a deputy leader of winding up this debate, which has proved a

:11:00. > :11:05.remarkable one. In a number of ways, a landmark in the proceedings of the

:11:06. > :11:13.house. We have been treated to extremely powerful contributions

:11:14. > :11:15.with for and against, and for and against amendments that have been

:11:16. > :11:21.tabled. I listened with care to them all. I suggested to your lordships

:11:22. > :11:27.that there are two aspects of the matter that we are here to consider.

:11:28. > :11:32.The contents of the regulations themselves, and the issues, with

:11:33. > :11:35.want of a better term, I will call the constitutional questions that

:11:36. > :11:41.arise out of three of the amendments for us. Let me turn first to the

:11:42. > :11:45.policy. Without unnecessarily going over the ground already covered by

:11:46. > :11:49.my noble friend the Leader of the House, there is one central point to

:11:50. > :11:53.be made at the outset. I make this point given and a number of the

:11:54. > :11:56.noble Lords have seen fit to criticise both the intent and the

:11:57. > :12:04.effects of what the government is seeking to achieve. The government

:12:05. > :12:08.wants a new deal for working people. A deal whereby those who claim

:12:09. > :12:15.neither tax credits nor universal credit, will all the ways be better

:12:16. > :12:20.off in work, and always better off working more. The way that we are

:12:21. > :12:24.doing this will mean that a typical family man or woman, working

:12:25. > :12:28.full-time on the national with -- living wage, will be better off by

:12:29. > :12:32.the end of this Parliament, substantially better off, then at

:12:33. > :12:38.the beginning of it. That is the aim that we set for ourselves, and it is

:12:39. > :12:41.an aim that runs parallel with our policy of incense, which we have

:12:42. > :12:45.made it expressly clear for nearly two years now, they conservative

:12:46. > :12:50.government, if and when elected, would look to find welfare savings

:12:51. > :12:56.of around ?12 billion in order to reduce the public sector deficit. I

:12:57. > :13:00.would simply say to the noble Baroness that the proposals that she

:13:01. > :13:03.has constructively put forward in her contribution are in fact already

:13:04. > :13:10.built into the assumptions that we have made. I am happy to look at her

:13:11. > :13:15.proposals in more detail, but from what she has said the Chancellor has

:13:16. > :13:20.already factored these points in the. Achieving these two policies

:13:21. > :13:25.simultaneously is only possible if a series of measures are taken.

:13:26. > :13:31.Measures that will move us from a position in which working households

:13:32. > :13:34.are supported by a low wages and high tax credits, to one where there

:13:35. > :13:42.are higher wages and lower tax credits. The regulations before us

:13:43. > :13:47.today are only about the tax credit elements of the overall picture.

:13:48. > :13:51.That is why it is unfair to pick up the report from the in of fiscal

:13:52. > :13:58.studies, and to point with alarm to a large loss which a poor worker and

:13:59. > :14:01.family might incur from a cut in tax credits, without also taking into

:14:02. > :14:08.account other vitally important things that we are doing. The

:14:09. > :14:14.counterbalance to lower tax credits is a commendation of positives. The

:14:15. > :14:23.national living wage, the rise the income tax personal allowance, and

:14:24. > :14:27.importantly... The Institute of fiscal studies is clear in

:14:28. > :14:32.incorporating the effects of not only the tax credit changes, but

:14:33. > :14:37.also the rise in the minimum wage and the international living wage,

:14:38. > :14:40.as well as the increase in the income and tax thresholds, and then

:14:41. > :14:44.make it very clear that the redistribution of fax of all of

:14:45. > :14:52.these things from the port to the rich. I don't dispute that they

:14:53. > :14:56.looked at these things, but the figure of ?1300 does not take into

:14:57. > :15:00.account the positives that I have mentioned. Importantly, with

:15:01. > :15:04.families with children, the doubling of free childcare should not be

:15:05. > :15:09.overlooked. That, for many people, but not for all, will make it

:15:10. > :15:18.possible to work longer hours. These are just some of the counterbalance

:15:19. > :15:23.is. Noble Baroness chosen not to mention. I cannot pretend that these

:15:24. > :15:27.have been easy decisions. However, I put it to the house that the

:15:28. > :15:33.measures that we are taking are the right thing for us to be doing, not

:15:34. > :15:38.right for individual working families, but also for the nation.

:15:39. > :15:44.We are still, as a nation, living grossly beyond our means. Even so, a

:15:45. > :15:52.out of ten working households will be better off by 2000 Stewart to

:15:53. > :16:01.making than they are now, because of the combined effect of the measures

:16:02. > :16:07.that we are now taking. 2017. Can he support that eight out of ten

:16:08. > :16:15.households -- we have not had those impact assessments done. The

:16:16. > :16:23.distribution analysis that came out at the time of the budget... Is the

:16:24. > :16:27.Minister as saying that a out of ten people currently on tax credits are

:16:28. > :16:34.being subject to these cuts, are they similarly going to be better

:16:35. > :16:42.off? A out of ten working families, whether or not on tax credits... It

:16:43. > :16:53.is an important point to factor in, because the rise in the national

:16:54. > :16:59.living wage will affect not just of those on tax credits. Many millions

:17:00. > :17:07.of others who are paid above that level in the so-called ripple effect

:17:08. > :17:12.that has been widely affect. -- discussed. I wonder if the ministry

:17:13. > :17:18.would than a focus on the two out of ten that he says are losers, and

:17:19. > :17:22.tell us how many people those are, how many children there are in those

:17:23. > :17:27.families, and what their loss is likely to be? We are talking about a

:17:28. > :17:32.million people, largely children with families, and I think that he

:17:33. > :17:42.will be able to confirm that they, in the lowest deciles of the

:17:43. > :17:49.population in terms of poverty. Let me address that. It has been said by

:17:50. > :17:53.some noble Lords and the noble Baroness is question implies that,

:17:54. > :17:59.that the brunt of these savings will be those on tax credits. Those who

:18:00. > :18:09.are worse off, I beg your pardon. That is not the case. The 10% of tax

:18:10. > :18:14.credit on the highest income, ?42,000, a contributing nearly four

:18:15. > :18:20.times as much to the savings that we are proposing as the poorest

:18:21. > :18:25.claimant. That is an important point to factor in the. The problem of

:18:26. > :18:29.talking about those at the lower end of the scale is that everyone's

:18:30. > :18:35.circumstances are difficult -- different. Somehow people -- so that

:18:36. > :18:40.children some doubt, some have disabilities some don't, and it is

:18:41. > :18:45.very difficult to particular eyes. Why can I say is that the cutting

:18:46. > :18:51.public spending that we are now proposing to these regulations is

:18:52. > :18:56.one that will take us back, not to some far distant point in the past,

:18:57. > :19:03.but to the levels of spending seen in 2007 two 2008, for the financial

:19:04. > :19:08.crash. I'm talking about the spending in its totality. One cannot

:19:09. > :19:17.particular eyes an individual case, because peoples circumstances would

:19:18. > :19:21.be different. I am grateful for the Deputy leader for giving way. He is

:19:22. > :19:25.giving a defence, and it does not give much of an indication that the

:19:26. > :19:29.government will be thinking again as some members of the opposite bench

:19:30. > :19:32.have been indicating. Before he came here today, I wonder if he spoke to

:19:33. > :19:39.the leader of his party in Scotland? He said over the weekend

:19:40. > :19:42.that "if we are not the party of getting people into work, there will

:19:43. > :19:48.are we therefore? It is not acceptable. Dame is there, but we

:19:49. > :19:52.cannot have people suffering on the way. The idea that there is a cliff

:19:53. > :19:57.edge before the uptake and wages comes in is a real, practical, human

:19:58. > :20:04.problem, and the government needs to look again at it. " With a? Those

:20:05. > :20:11.questions fail to take into account what I've mentioned, the national

:20:12. > :20:14.living wage... Wade maybe I wasn't clear when I indicated that that is

:20:15. > :20:23.the leader of his party in Scotland. Wade I cannot take those

:20:24. > :20:30.comments in any context having not read them. I heard what you reported

:20:31. > :20:34.of the leader of the conservative party in Scotland, but I am not

:20:35. > :20:43.aware of the general context of which she was speaking. I hope you

:20:44. > :20:53.understand that. The budget for the entire nation's entire defence

:20:54. > :20:58.spending... The regulations before us account for a ?4.4 billion of

:20:59. > :21:04.public expenditure in the next financial year. That is a large

:21:05. > :21:10.slice of the defence budget, but it is not the total defence budget. It

:21:11. > :21:14.will, however, mean that the Chancellor has more money at his

:21:15. > :21:19.disposal to spend on schools and hospitals, and on those with

:21:20. > :21:25.disabilities. Incidentally, I would say to the Archbishop of York, the

:21:26. > :21:29.national living wage is only possible because the economy of this

:21:30. > :21:33.country is strengthening. It is strengthening because there is a

:21:34. > :21:38.high degree of confidence in the government's economic programme, and

:21:39. > :21:43.it's ability to deliver economic stability amongst other things,

:21:44. > :21:49.reducing the deficit. One has to look at the totality of what the

:21:50. > :21:59.Chancellor's programme looks at. My Lords... The living wage commission

:22:00. > :22:03.which I chair was working with commissions and it was a good

:22:04. > :22:07.climate. Weaver clear that those companies that can't afford to pay

:22:08. > :22:13.should pay a living wage, and you'd be interested to note that even

:22:14. > :22:21.before the economic stuff started brewing, there was an ethical

:22:22. > :22:25.conviction that their workers, the greatest evil on her majesties

:22:26. > :22:30.people is that some people are not being paid a living wage. Those

:22:31. > :22:37.companies talk on the need to pay a living wage, even when the economy

:22:38. > :22:47.was bad. The economy has proved, and if it has, why aren't we helping the

:22:48. > :22:50.poorest and those most in need? We are doing so, and we are doing so

:22:51. > :22:54.through the national living wage. We should welcome the fact that these

:22:55. > :22:59.companies are paying the national living wage, and there are 200 major

:23:00. > :23:05.companies already doing it. That is a good thing, and I congratulate him

:23:06. > :23:13.for the work that he is done in this area. I don't think there's much

:23:14. > :23:24.between us on this. Is an impression that was given that my suggestion as

:23:25. > :23:30.-- he wants to cut four point for billing to the living wage, but the

:23:31. > :23:34.report shows that 5 million are being paid a living wage and

:23:35. > :23:44.there'll be a last tax credit on those. Because the people are is

:23:45. > :23:49.over, that is why... It is interesting that the Institute for

:23:50. > :23:55.Fiscal Studies said in the report that the Chancellor made quite a big

:23:56. > :24:01.choice in the budget to protect some of the poorest people on tax

:24:02. > :24:06.credits. That is self evidently true, and I would add in response to

:24:07. > :24:16.the noble Baroness who I'm sorry is not her place, oh she is... Baker

:24:17. > :24:20.pardon. The disabled, and severely disabled on the working tax credits

:24:21. > :24:26.will not be cut to these measures. They will be operated by inflation,

:24:27. > :24:31.and in fact the government is making savings in tax credits so they can

:24:32. > :24:35.protect disability benefits, which have been protected from the

:24:36. > :24:39.benefits freeze and the welfare cap, including a DLA, and the support

:24:40. > :24:45.group component of the ESA as well as disability components of the tax

:24:46. > :24:53.credits as I have mentioned. I hope that this is some reassurance. My

:24:54. > :24:56.Lords, despite alibis -- why what we're doing is necessary and right,

:24:57. > :25:01.I recognised that there are those who are in opposition and will

:25:02. > :25:08.remain unpersuaded. Let me address of the amendments. Other than in the

:25:09. > :25:10.rarest of circumstances, it is against the long-standing

:25:11. > :25:18.conventions of this house, and therefore I would suggest for us to

:25:19. > :25:24.not bow down or block secondary legislation. Those records

:25:25. > :25:31.circumstances I would argue, do not include those -- this situation.

:25:32. > :25:36.These noble Lords should not be challenging the House of Commons on

:25:37. > :25:42.spending and taxation. That point was made by Lord Butler. The sums

:25:43. > :25:48.involved are not trivial. The relations before us would account

:25:49. > :25:54.for welfare savings of 4.4 billion in 2016. We can argue my Lords, and

:25:55. > :26:01.I am interested in arguing by dumping that it would be profitable,

:26:02. > :26:05.about the technicalities of whether these relations are or are not

:26:06. > :26:14.financial. In substance, they are financial. I would, therefore say

:26:15. > :26:24.that the Baroness's amendment should not be put to a vote. It's the

:26:25. > :26:29.Baroness is situation is simple. There is a choice before this house,

:26:30. > :26:33.either to a proof or not to approve these relations. It is a binary

:26:34. > :26:40.choice. The noble Baroness's are inviting the house to withhold our

:26:41. > :26:44.approval. We can argue endlessly, once again, about the technicality

:26:45. > :26:50.of whether the wording of these amendments is or is not fatal in

:26:51. > :26:54.nature. The reality is that if either amendment were passed, this

:26:55. > :27:01.house would not have approved these relations. Is no good saying that

:27:02. > :27:08.this would merely amounts to asking the House of Commons to think again.

:27:09. > :27:12.I can do that with amendments to primary legislation, but with

:27:13. > :27:16.secondary legislation there is no mechanism for a dialogue between the

:27:17. > :27:25.houses, and no mechanism to allow the will of the comments to prevail

:27:26. > :27:31.it in respect of this instrument. Does he accept that she does not ask

:27:32. > :27:35.the House of Commons to think again, but to ask the government to

:27:36. > :27:42.reconsider its proposals, she is asking the government to

:27:43. > :27:46.reconsider? I accept that. Per amendment is asking the government

:27:47. > :27:50.to do something other than what is in the regulations. By definition,

:27:51. > :27:57.that means that if her amendment were carried, we could not bring

:27:58. > :28:01.back the same set of proposals, and implementations of these relations

:28:02. > :28:06.would not be delayed as the Baroness is suggesting, it would be thwarted

:28:07. > :28:17.entirely. She is asking the House to accept a false proposition. Is very

:28:18. > :28:26.interesting that the noble Baroness herself has recently given an

:28:27. > :28:31.interview which certainly implies that her amendment is a fatal one.

:28:32. > :28:36.The interview that she gave to the Huffington Post, she said that in

:28:37. > :28:39.the interview if the memo were carried it would mean that the

:28:40. > :28:52.government could not go ahead with the cuts. That, to me, is very fatal

:28:53. > :28:58.indeed. My Lords, therefore. I'm surprised, with all of this

:28:59. > :29:02.experience he seemed to be suggesting that there is no

:29:03. > :29:06.significant difference between a fatal amendments and a nonfatal

:29:07. > :29:16.amendments. In the kind I have been here, which is less than his, has

:29:17. > :29:22.been a quite clear distinction. The Leader of the House seems to be

:29:23. > :29:25.unclear about in her initial presentation. There is no

:29:26. > :29:31.distinction between the Lib Dem amendment and the Labour amendment.

:29:32. > :29:34.The difference is fundamental, and if he does not accept my

:29:35. > :29:40.proposition, can he at least enlighten the House as to what the

:29:41. > :29:44.professional advice from Clark has been to him and to the conservative

:29:45. > :29:50.front bench as to which of these amendments are fatal, and which are

:29:51. > :30:02.not? There is a clear difference in the wording, but the effect is

:30:03. > :30:07.exactly the same. As my point. I have the greatest respect for him,

:30:08. > :30:13.but in her speech my noble friend the Baroness said exquisitely that

:30:14. > :30:19.she had drafted her amendment with the explicit help of the park of the

:30:20. > :30:23.parliaments. The cart of the parliament said that it was not a

:30:24. > :30:29.fatal amendments. The Lord challenging that? I cannot gainsay

:30:30. > :30:40.the Clark of the parliaments. Heaven forbid. Perhaps what was meant that

:30:41. > :30:44.the wording that the noble Baroness's amendment is not of a

:30:45. > :30:54.kind one associates with a fatal amendments. Nevertheless they

:30:55. > :31:03.traditionally worded fatal amendments is that, in the words of

:31:04. > :31:07.the being the been lady Baroness... I am sure that she got good advice.

:31:08. > :31:15.The best advice is that there is. What we are looking it at is that

:31:16. > :31:21.what we're looking at what happened? It would frustrate the

:31:22. > :31:27.governments intent. I would like to ask the Minister, does he think that

:31:28. > :31:39.it would be impossible if these two amendments were parsed, -- past,

:31:40. > :31:43.with vehemence be brought back? Be amended to hold the government

:31:44. > :31:45.hostage. We might be able to bring back some different regulations, but

:31:46. > :31:53.what if those were unacceptable to the house? Read their wording of the

:31:54. > :32:04.amendment. It puts aside with perpetual treadmill. There is an

:32:05. > :32:11.important distinction between the amendment of the Baroness and my

:32:12. > :32:15.amendment. The crucial difference, not a fatal amendments, is that all

:32:16. > :32:21.it asks for is some time and some information. Pays a very different

:32:22. > :32:27.thing than asking the government to spend money on the transitional

:32:28. > :32:30.arrangements. I have put on at this amendment for one reason, and that

:32:31. > :32:36.is because the House of Commons has a cross party motion on Thursday,

:32:37. > :32:44.which they will debate with eight conservative MPs. Does the Minister

:32:45. > :32:49.accept that to give the government time to listen to the comments is

:32:50. > :32:55.actually entirely inappropriate duty for this house to perform?

:32:56. > :33:02.The fact is that the House of Commons with at this three times,

:33:03. > :33:06.and has not overturned the proposal, in fact it has been approved, and I

:33:07. > :33:12.would simply say to the noble Baroness that there is, if we're

:33:13. > :33:16.talking about the advice given in Parliament, there is a crucial

:33:17. > :33:21.difference between an amendment procedurally permissible to bring

:33:22. > :33:26.before the House, and an amendment which it is constitutionally proper

:33:27. > :33:31.for the House to approve. I do not take issue with the noble Baroness

:33:32. > :33:34.bringing her motion here, or noble Baroness Lady Hollis, and what I do

:33:35. > :33:38.take issue with is the idea that we should vote in favour of either of

:33:39. > :33:46.them. Or indeed, that of the other one. Now, I need to conclude for the

:33:47. > :33:49.House to withhold its consent to the regulations today, would in favour

:33:50. > :33:51.of either of them. Or indeed, that of the other one. Now, I need to

:33:52. > :33:54.conclude for the House to withhold its consent to the regulations

:33:55. > :33:56.today, being overruling in the House of Commons, on an issue which that

:33:57. > :33:59.House has already expressed its view one, three times, in other words, it

:34:00. > :34:04.would mean doing what this house has not done, for more than a hundred

:34:05. > :34:08.years, which is to seek to override the primacy of the House of Commons

:34:09. > :34:16.on a financial matter. So I say, respectfully, to the noble Baroness

:34:17. > :34:19.that there is a right way and a wrong way to challenge the

:34:20. > :34:23.government policy, on a matter of this kind, and this is the wrong

:34:24. > :34:28.way. The right way is either to table amendments such as the one in

:34:29. > :34:31.the name of the right Reverend, not that I support it, but that is the

:34:32. > :34:35.proper way of doing it, or for a suitable opportunity to table

:34:36. > :34:39.amendment to a piece of primary legislation, and indeed there is a

:34:40. > :34:44.bill coming to us shortly. The welfare reform work bill, which

:34:45. > :34:50.would enable local lords to do that, should they so choose. So, my

:34:51. > :34:53.contention is this: Been needs and regulations for a central plank of

:34:54. > :34:57.the programme, on which the government was elected in May, a

:34:58. > :35:02.programme that has been in the public domain for a long time,

:35:03. > :35:06.however, even if they were not, even if these were policies dreamt up by

:35:07. > :35:10.the chancellor overnight, I respectfully say to you that this

:35:11. > :35:17.house under its conventions should not reject statutory adjustment, nor

:35:18. > :35:22.seek to overturn the primacy of the other place on a matter of a very

:35:23. > :35:28.sizeable public expenditure. And I therefore in light the sponsors of

:35:29. > :35:34.each amendment to withdraw them, and I would urge the House to allow the

:35:35. > :35:38.regulations to pass. And I would simply remind the House that in

:35:39. > :35:43.order to support the motion, and the amendment in the name of the right

:35:44. > :35:54.Reverend, the previous three amendments need either to be

:35:55. > :35:59.withdrawn, or defeated. My book, I want to thank for the contributions

:36:00. > :36:05.to this debate, and you will be relieved to hear that I do not

:36:06. > :36:07.intend to summarise. All of the excellent contributions that have

:36:08. > :36:14.been made from all sides of the House today. As your lordships now,

:36:15. > :36:19.I'm a relatively new member of the lordships House, and for me, it is a

:36:20. > :36:24.privilege to serve as a member of your lordships House, but with that

:36:25. > :36:29.privilege, comes responsibility. My lords, tabling this motion was not

:36:30. > :36:31.something I did a member of your lordships House, but with that

:36:32. > :36:34.privilege, comes responsibility. My lords, tabling this motion was not

:36:35. > :36:37.something I did likely. On the role of this house, and I do not believe

:36:38. > :36:43.that this is a situation in which the House should find itself

:36:44. > :36:48.regularly. However, ultimately, and this is about this house making a

:36:49. > :36:53.decision on whether we think it is acceptable for the government to cut

:36:54. > :36:59.off vital support for 3 million families, which it claims to

:37:00. > :37:04.support. Is about whether we think it is acceptable for the prime

:37:05. > :37:09.minister to make these changes, not via primary legislation, but by a

:37:10. > :37:13.procedural instrument, in direct contradiction of what he set to be

:37:14. > :37:20.able to do during the general election. Is about whether we think

:37:21. > :37:24.it is acceptable for this house to relinquish its responsibilities to

:37:25. > :37:31.those affected. I welcome the Leader of the House saying that the

:37:32. > :37:37.Chancellor will be listening to this debate very carefully. And I hope

:37:38. > :37:45.also, in my lords, I could not look myself in the eye tomorrow. I did

:37:46. > :37:51.not too I could to stop this devastating measure going through. I

:37:52. > :37:57.know that many in my party feel the same, and while I hold no ill will

:37:58. > :38:05.against anyone that do not share our view, I hope that those who are

:38:06. > :38:09.doing this in the lives of those 4.9 million children should be our

:38:10. > :38:16.primary concern, and join us in the voting lobbies. Tax credit cuts for

:38:17. > :38:19.the low-paid working families are short-sighted, and deeply damaging,

:38:20. > :38:23.not only for parents and children, that will bear the cost, but also

:38:24. > :38:28.for the government's on long term goals. I urge the government to

:38:29. > :38:35.rethink, and I hope that the House will choose to reject the

:38:36. > :38:41.regulations, as they stand. I wish to test the opinion of the House. My

:38:42. > :38:47.lords, I beg to move. The question is that the amendment in the name of

:38:48. > :38:54.the Baroness be agreed to. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To

:38:55. > :39:18.the contrary, "no". I think the noes have it.

:39:19. > :42:27.My lords, my lords. LAUGHTER The question is that the

:42:28. > :42:36.As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The

:42:37. > :42:45.ayes, will go to the right, and the noes will go to the left.

:42:46. > :48:02.My lords, my lords. The question is that this mad dash amendment be

:48:03. > :48:07.approved. -- amendment.