26/10/2015 House of Lords


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/10/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


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


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


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


transitional protection before the House further considers this


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


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


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


lords break prevention by trespassing on commoners financial


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


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


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


amendment if the Speaker certifies that the comments has financial


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


bill which we cannot amend. Financial privilege does not extend


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


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


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


these layered elements to tax credits are all affected by the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


instead of those three minutes 3 million families facing letters at


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


family circumstances which the employer cannot reasonably do. My


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


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


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


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


financial stability at which to bring opera children. She needs


transitional protection to the cuts only affects those will not put


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


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


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


The ISS says the Treasury are arithmetically impossible. Get those


Christmas letters will still arrive. Members of the conservative


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


letters will still arrive at Christmas. BBB told perhaps among


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


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


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


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


decision on incomplete decisions some of which is only now becoming


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


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


transitional protection to existing families, called on tax credits,


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


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


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


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


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


additional revenues by return to government from the rise indeed very


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


of the payments should be on universal credits and the government


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


but the government can get its welfare savings without these


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the government to provide additional protection for existing families who


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Families, who exhausted themselves caring for disabled children, were


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


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


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


tonight. Whatever the comments decides on Thursday, the Chandler


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


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


comments a pause to think about this additional information, additional


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


thoughts that members of the conservative party may no half in


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


lady. My Lords, I deeply regret that the


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


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


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


Majesty's government manifesto commitment to eradicate deficits,


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


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


now that we should somehow have anticipated these proposals when


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


confidence for the future sounds like extraordinary I do missing


today for the working families, including 4 million children who


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


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


incrementally increase the minimum wage, which will benefit some next


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


childcare and other responsibilities in order to provide for their


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


these proposals blatantly threatened damage to the lives of millions of


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


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


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


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


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


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


proposals in the coming weeks. A commitment.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


point scoring, any rating of the issues around constitutional


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


consideration as to the best interests of the poorest workers in


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


emphatically did not table of this amendment, because of party


political pressures. I am aware of the conflicting views of


constitutional matters. This amendment offers an alternative, and


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


amendments, for this house to register its disapproval of these


proposals. Also its expectations that are reservations will be


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


will be listening carefully to further contributions this


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Chancellor will consider these matters very carefully. I know that


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


tax credit changes to an individual circumstance. Your lordships will


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


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


the difficulty of finding out precisely who were affected and how


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


the difficulties in this connection also may well be that the


information that arises in the course of the attempt to deliver


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


regulations on a monetary amounts which are required to be reviewed


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


question is whether the consideration can properly interview


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


place mechanisms, to prevent the financial privileges being in any


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


suggest necessary consequences for that, that the Commons or labour


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


First, this represents a lamentable example for not evidence based


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


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


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


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


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


Security advisor recommitted to criticise the scant evidence to


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


available to Parliament, more detailed information, that clearly


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


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


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


something the advice was ignored. Leading to the Secretary legislation


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


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


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


simply repeats repetitive repetitively, the rationale behind


the policy. It certainly does not provide the information about


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


impact of such on different groups affected, including the Celtic


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


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


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


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


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


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


all carriers receiving working tax credit. In the letter accompanying


the impact assessment, the Chancellor excuse the delay on the


grounds that the government does not usually published this for statutory


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The government appears to be contracting out genuine assessment


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


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


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


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


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


those organizations, who have exposed by the overall policy


package that the government constantly sites, does not amount an


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


disproportionately affected according to gingerbread. And a key


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


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


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


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


is wasteful. They cannot take account of the presence of


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


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


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


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


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


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


and further increases in tax allowances. Finally, according to


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


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


somehow incompatible with independent, self respect, and


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


about those with family responsibilities? Particularly


parents from working extra hours would impact negatively on their


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


understand the consequences of legislation for statutory


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


credits to provide an unprecedented and effective point. For disabled


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


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


For directories and, broad disability, look to their


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


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


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


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


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


this incentivizes disabled people for who a very difficult positions.


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


completely impact on the government's other policies, which


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


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


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


What is the inevitable resort of unemployment and disabled people.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


it will indeed give space for further reflection, and


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


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


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


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


rather than buttressing from the state, that should provide the


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


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


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


due course. Without the introduction of regulations in the foreign


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


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


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


populous area, encompassing both significant populations of open


deprivation, alongside a very considerable wealth. The


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


rising house prices, already threatening the balance of many


communities, and I feel the introductory of these regulations


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


families to breaking point. A reduction in the threshold for


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


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


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


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


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


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


Suffolk alone, whose 50th anniversary is being commemorated


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


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


allowance for the mitigating factors being introduced by the government,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


children bear a significant adjustment in their economic


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


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


stripping other citizens of their dignity by these provisions, even


though the government stated an intention with the home range of


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


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


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


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


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


arrangements. I therefore support this as tabled by the right


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


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


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


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


constitutional differences that that exists between two chambers. My


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


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


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


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


comments, over statutory instruments. This is taking a very


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


wrong or right. It is the spirit to be


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


are not covered by financial privilege? Unequivocally from


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


budgetary matters are the prerogative of the elected House.


And that is a most important constitutional principle, this was


designed to reduce the budget deficit, which everybody agrees has


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the right Reverend. He listens very carefully to the


contribution of the former Chancellor, Lord Lawson. His support


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


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


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


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


arguments claiming to insignificance when compared to the greater


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


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


during the course of the general elections solemn undertakings given


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


that those allies tromp all of the constitutional niceties. Weatherbee


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


constitutional issue. I usually agree with the noble lady lady


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


is defeated on a statutory instrument. It has only happened


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


resolved that this house reserves its unfettered freedom to vote on


any subordinate legislation submitted for its legislation. Is


this not subordinate legislation from submitted for our legislation?


What I am saying is that the combination of statutory instruments


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


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


matter of this starch. That establishes what the constitutional


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


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


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


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


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


suggestion. Insisted that any attempt by the government to raise


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


statutory instrument until the government has done certain things


specified in the amendments. These include surrendering some of the


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


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


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


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


In that case, these amendments blocked the statutory instrument


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


those who would move these amendments, it would be a


constitutional infringement of great gravity to pass the first three of


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


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


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


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


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


which has that responsibility in our constitutional arrangement. It has


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


statutory instrument, could the government in the comments bring


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Institute for Government, Peter Riddle, who is greatly respected


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


many, many occasions when the opposition has wanted to overturn


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


cases the opposition recognising the conventions, has exercised


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


constitutional conventions. I believe that the house should do so


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


today. Firstly, whether not financial privilege applies, the


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


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


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


resolution would be contrary to financial understandings that exist


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


reject it. The government could have avoided these constitutional


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


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


include these proposals in the finance Bill? Alternatively, they


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


government choice, to do it by secondary legislation. That


inevitably curtailed debate here and in the House of Commons particularly


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


place. Inevitably the national discussion been truncated. It has


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


consultation, there's been no consultation on measures to


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


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


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


voted for the general election. Considerable efforts to conceal the


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


Minister after Minister appeared before the television cameras saying


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


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


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


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


not acceptable. He has set out an alternative policy


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


defended the privileges of this house, and the greatest privileges


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


both houses know the factual positions, and the deposition is


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


only be done through primary legislation. These two cases are


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


clear that secondary deflation is not covered by some of the


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


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


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


the House of Commons is concerned. If this house


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


our hands, because when they produced this legislation we will


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


forgetting your legislative responsibilities. If you are


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


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


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


she outlined clearly consequences of this hasty way of reducing and


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


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


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


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


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


that two years ago I chaired a commission that brought together


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


much neater way of doing it. Businesses are reporting


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


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


when opponent finances are tight. Where inequality grows, economics


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


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


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


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


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


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


depending on tax credits, but actually doing it properly and


fairly. Britain has struggled through challenging times. I hope


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Various chances and chief secretaries, might do that. Perhaps


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


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


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


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


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


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


forward on my budget. One counterargument I never used was


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


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


what was in the manifesto. Every government introduces measures not


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


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


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


the Treasury, that was the whole basis of measuring inflation and the


cost of well over ?1 billion. The reduction in benefits bending will


always be unpopular. I found that in the Cabinet, everyone was in favour


of the general argument that when it came to the specific, they always


said please, not that way. And frankly, I have decided that I think


the conservative manifesto in 2015, spelled out what is intended with


more clarity in this area, then any manifesto I can remember on either


side. The government said in words, that they would have -- find ?12


billion from welfare savings, and that is... Hang on. Leverages finish


my point. That is a good deal, more specific than any manifesto I had


anything to do it, myself, and indeed any manifesto which I ever


came across. I give way. Does he think it was right then for Mr


Cameron to rule out tax credit cuts at the time of the general election


to think he was right to do so? I think we have been around this


before, and the Noble Lord has made this point several times, but more


to the point, and has not considered now three times in the House of


Commons, and has been rejected, in fact, I think he was talking but


considering child tax credit, not the whole web. And what the


manifesto Alston made clear in words that the pension ratings would be


protected in other words, that area of the retirement would be fenced. I


don't think there was any controversy about that. But, but


obviously that meant is that I bring fencing pensioners benefits, they


now had the field of very existentially with a ?12 billion


cuts followed. Not everyone will agree with that, and indeed, my


major reason for introducing family credit was concerned for low income


working families with children, but even then it was clear that what was


happening was that pensioners were increasing in that. And that was not


actually being put forward by the low income families. But, what I do


say is that I do not think that anyone can imagine how spending on


tax credits was to escalate in the way that it did. Tax credits are


being tripled in the ten years up until 2010, and was estimated to be


about ?13 billion a year. Doubt was a long way from the original game.


But I accept, my lords, that none of this was the fault of the families


who are struggling to make ends meet, often in very difficult


circumstances. I totally accept and agree with that. I therefore welcome


the measures of the Leader of the House, where she said that these


matters would now be cleared, and again, I would hope that when they


are, we can find room to look particularly at the petition of


families with children, and that it seems to be is a particular


priority. And the emotion is precisely upon this. Were the


government to do this or not, and this is the point, it is frankly a


matter... Who is asked on this, and other financial matters, that the


House of Commons and not to others. The common sense position,... I will


give weight. My lord, I hate to interrupt, but he said clearly that


the leader had talked the House that these measures would be considered.


Now I think I listened quite naturally to all of this, and I'm


not sure I heard that. I'm very happy to be corrected. I give that


to the leader of to put those into specific words, but I do not think


that is not an unfair representation of what she said. We are, my lords,


the unelected House, the other place is the elected one. Measure has


Artie been voted, on twice, if not three times, and we cannot have this


trying to impose its will on ?500 of savings to be in if I can say if


there's one thing to the members of the House of Commons, who are here,


I do not remember when we were ordered in the House of Commons


together, and I'm saying we must give more financial power over what


happens over the House of Lords. I do not remember at any stage of that


point being made, and I do not remember that being made by anyone


in any one party, on this particular position. I think a certain degree


of humility are in order. My lords,... Does this not show that


our powers of statutory instruments are far too drastic? As was pointed


out and report on conventions, and it would be bad if we gave up the


power to accept or reject a statutory instrument in exchange for


maybe two amendments, which would deal with Noble Lord, Lord Lawson's


point, we could not oppose it. There may be a lifeboat out of this, if we


could actually get something out of it, in the way we're dealing with


secondary legislation, with all of this in the future? I think that is


something that we can consider for the future, and on first hearing,


sounds like an attractive proposition. But we are considering


what we're now, and not for the future. If I may make this last


point. In spite of some of the criticism, and the attack, now being


directed at this house, it is my view that this house carries out a


very valuable function, a serious function, and the members I meet


your day by day are hard-working, not just on the floor of the House,


but in select committees. I do think we need to recognise one


common-sense thing. Long as this is an appointed house, we must accept a


limitation on our powers, particularly in financial properties


Gabi to ignore those limitations, that is not in the interest and not


in the interest in the House of Lords, and it is not in the interest


of the public. It cannot be justified, and that is why I will be


voting against against these amendments. My lords,... My lords, I


just rise to said that we have been going at this now for well over two


and a half hours, and many points, and there have been strong arguments


on each side of the argument. And many points have been made on the


speeches which have not only been lengthy, but mighty. I find it


difficult to conceive that there are any more arguments that could be


deployed LAUGHTER On either side of the argument, as I


would submit that it... We have reached the point where we need to


cut to the point, where we make up our minds, and it is time to come to


a conclusion. My lords, I accept the point of the Noble Lord, but if I


may I think I have one or two points that have not been made before, and


if the House would indulge me, I would be grateful for the


opportunity to do so. I will not go over the case against the


regulations and their current form, that has been argued powerfully


tonight from all benches, and the need for reconsideration, I think,


we could almost pass. The issue before us is whether it is


constitutionally appropriate for the House of Lords to use its most


potent, most well known weapon of delay. In respect of these


regulations. Very powerful speeches were made from bishops, and correct


that I'd just say that I'm delighted that the right Reverend is here for


today's debate, and I should either born or can soul, but it is not


always this. LAUGHTER However, I hope that the bench and


others will consider that it might be appropriate for the House to use


its powers of delay tonight, and I favour the motion in the name of the


noble lady. Because it gives us an alternative to eight fatal amendment


on a matter which I think is of high political importance. It gives us


the opportunity of delay, and asking the Commons and through than the


government, to think again. Now, the noble lady and the Leader of the


House, said when she introduced the debate, that she had seen the


Chancellor of the Exchequer today, and I think that the words are ever


used were that he would listen very carefully, to what was said in the


House today. I accept that. I have to say that having had the privilege


of being in both houses, that I think he will listen even more


carefully to what is said in the House of Commons, on Thursday. And I


would like him to have the opportunity to do that, so I have


asked myself whether the fact that this is innovative, in terms of...


Was something that we should therefore enjoy. My answer is no. If


we have the power to kill a statutory instrument and send it


back to base, then surely, we have the power to delay a statutory


instrument, and weight for that reconsideration. On the question of


whether this is being discussed in another place, absolutely I


understand that. Doesn't need consideration? Yes, I think it does.


And actually, my lords, every time we discuss an amendment bill that


has gone through the House of Commons, it is probably being voted


on three times. My second reading, the committee, and on the report.


That does not inhibit us the first time around, I'm saying will you


please look again. For me, the only question to make is the question of


financial privilege. And, I hesitate to cross swords with either Noble


Lord, or my noble friend, but I think this situation is not as


clear-cut as they set out. If this were a finance Bill, we would have


no part in. If it were a taxation as side, it would only go to the House


of Commons. But it is not. This is an essay under "ordinary


legislation." And under that, on this bill, this house considers


amendments and sends them to the House of Commons. The House of


Commons can then do what it likes to do. It can accept them, it can offer


a compromise, it can reject them, or it can invoke financial privilege.


But that is after this house has asked them to think again. I think


again that that is the best answer been an analogy with the Finance


Act. This is the statutory instrument that is under a piece of


welfare legislation, not under a finance Bill. To me,... I am very


grateful to the noble lady, but surely there is an analogy. There is


an analogy with finance bills, and finance bills to come to your


Lordship's house, but we pass them without amendment, because that is


the Constitutional convention. That is similar to what we're being asked


to do on the statutory instruments. I have to say to the Noble Lord


Butler, that the financial convention, and not has not stayed


absolutely the same for 300 years, the financial convention was that


this house did not think about the finance Bill, or indeed economic


measures. In 2000... In the year 2000, we set up the economic affairs


committee, the House of Commons went into freeform about encroachment on


financial privilege. Even more so, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown at


the time, was incandescent at the idea that there should be a


subcommittee looking at the finance Bill. In fact, those things happen,


and the world did not collapse, financial privilege, the right of


the comments to have the final say, was not impeded. To my mind, this is


the matter of very high and clear-cut politics, and it is a


matter of very nuanced constitutional significance. And


overall, I believe that the power of this house is most important power,


while leaving the last word to the other place, is to ask the other


place to think again. And I would urge the House to use that power


this evening. My lords, this has been quite an


extraordinary debate. I think it is unusual that your Lordship's house


finds itself at the centre of such a vivacious policy, and


constitutionally as it does today. It is also extraordinarily unusual


that for a matter that affects a Department of work and pensions, and


the Treasury, we have no Treasury or DW key ministers dressing your


Lordship's house today. I can understand why the government feels


more comfortable talking about constitutional issues on this


regard, than it does about the impact of this policy. That is


something that we all understand. But it was, again, extraordinary


when the noble lady, the Leader of the House, supported an amendment to


the government's policy, when she supported the Bishop's amendment. It


seems quite in the extraordinary. My lord, this is unprecedented today.


And, I think it is good to see the Noble Lord... Thank you for giving


way. I think it is important, because she has interpreted from


what I had said, incorrectly, I was very clear that the government does


not any amendment to its motion. What I said, was that the right


Reverend had brought forward his concerns in a way which we have


consistently with the conventions and proper roles of this house. I


think that is a bit of an angel's on a pinhead defence. I think when he


took on the role as the defence minister he said his job was not to


defend... My lords, we are being asked to prove the government's tax


credit. We are unable to do so today, and I think the reasons why


it had been very carefully laid out. There is a pernicious regulations,


but do enormous damage, because as sleep they could dramatically cut


the incomes of the poorest in society, and those that are working


hard, and they're doing at the government says is the right thing,


and they have now about 3 million people that will be affected by


these cuts. Like many other lords, I've had e-mails and letters from


those who are likely to be affected. From nurses, teachers, cleaners,


firefighters, people working hard trying to raise families, and they


are terrified of what lies before them. They do not know how they are


going to cope. And, I think the noble lady got e-mails about those


with disabilities, and have been moved into work and finding


something for them. Another baroness spoke today, and the House was


silent. We could heard a pin drop. As we heard these cuts will really


mean and the impact they will have on people across this country. And I


think when I say to the noble lady, the House was shocked and upset


about the information she provided today, but she also provided a way


through. And, the Noble Lord Lawson, said tax credits have increased at


?30 billion, and they have. That is part of their success, because


obviously we have seen the income support reduced as people went into


work, because they no longer need income support, but they were


receiving tax credits. That was a successive measures. As people moved


into work, bed tax credits to reflect their consensus, and liver


was then told the way out of poverty is work. That is because people in


tax credit have done. That have moved into work. It may be that...


To lose ?35 and ?30 a week from income. But for a lot of people out


there, that ?25 or ?35 a week is devastating. Indians not putting in


money for the heater when it gets cold. It means that those kinds of


choices that we should never place on families. My lords, it is a


highly contentious area, it is the policy that is important. Now,


having said that, I think there are conventional issues and


constitutional issues that noble Lords have raised, and I've given


some concern. I have to say to the Noble Lord, it would of course, as


we have word, normally be expected for measures of the major and


magnitude of this, to be introduced by primary legislation. As the


government bill, go through the stages, have the opportunity to be


debated, have amendments put to it, and voted on. And we have


opportunities to make revisions, these are the concerns that were


raised. One has to wonder why the government did not take that route,


because they can apply for financial privilege, but they've chosen to


deal with this measure for statutory instrument. My lords,... I'm sorry


to interrupt, but we did hear from the Noble Lord, McKay, that this


came as the result of the Secretary of legislation from the tax credits


legislation, introduced by another Lord. As a result, this is a natural


progression from that piece of legislation. So I find it difficult


to understand whether the noble lady could explain why that was wrong. I


can help certainly. In 2002, the legislation went through a lot of


amendments to tax credits legislation made by statutory


instrument, delegated direct -- legislation,... Could be applied.


But major policy changes would not normally be made in any sort of


things by this kind of regulation. Furthermore, as I said in my


intervention to Lawson, the legislation itself in 2002, was not


itself subject to financial privilege. Been out of the


government saying that statutory legislation follows off of that, and


should be subject to financial privilege. So I did just the


concerns that global has died noble lady has raised. I'm so sorry to


interrupt. But I think it is an important point for the House to


understand that the original bill in 2002 tax credits act, was not


certified as a money bill. Because it included changes to the


administration of the welfare system. Had just been about


financial measures that we are debating, then it would probably


have been certified as an amendment to be but it was the addition of


administration that made it not to be certified as that. I took those


two bills to this house, and I can tell the noble lady, such


considerations never arose. ... Aborted because certification of the


bill is done by the Speaker. She makes my point for me, that major


issues like this, major changes, are undertaken in primary legislation,


but let's leave that to one side as it may. Anybody out and the real


world listening to us talking today would wonder what on earth we are on


about, primary legislation, secondary legislation, affirmative


and negative, actually what really matters is the impact it has on


applying common sense approaches, and what is before us today. We know


as parliamentarians that at size are more normally use for that specific


detail, issues... Already approved and while. And, as I've said, we


very properly use that kind of normal upgrade and tax credits, and


I think a I made the point about 2002 earlier. This proposal before


us today is way beyond that normal kind of operate. It is a major


policy change, that the government was not promised not to do, but it


is a significant and major policy change. The route the government has


chosen is not the wrong route, but there are consequences of taking


that, if the government chose a truncated process, and said not to


have that for consideration of the House of Lords, at the same time


allows this house so the normal constitutional procedures of your


large APPLAUSE Debate and discuss it, and debate and discuss the kind


of amendments that would have before us today. This is not a fatal


amendment, whatever the noble labour -- noble lady and her colleagues may


think. We have made numerous references, she's shaking her head,


but the evidence is there. It is very clear-cut. Now, if the


government has gone down normally, we would not be here today. There


would have been for the debates in the House of Commons, with MPs, and


I think MPs from across the House who privately and publicly as well


admitted that this goes too far to quickly, and causes too much harm.


Now, I think the motion by Miss Hollis is what I refer to as a


common sense approach. That can really make a difference. It is in


line with what mode -- most people in this contrasting four, 60% of the


population today are reporting to work to see a U-turn, or changing


this policy, and that is what the noble lady is seeking to do. It


calls on this house to reject these proposals as they stand, and for


ministers to come back with proposals or schemes to protect


those already given tax credits for at least three years. That is all of


them. In the past, -- if this were to pass, what happens next? To take


his proposal away, and reconsider that. The government can afford to


proposals for the consideration. He iterated that it disappears into the


ether. The government is committed to doing something, and we can bring


back the proposals tear lordships House, because we're working on a


private legislation if you wish. If it felt to be anything back at all,


it would mean the government could not proceed with these cuts, and


they would have to take another route, and reconsider the policy. No


government is right all the time. Best rice -- and this house is right


to ask that and have it reconsider, think again, pause,...


Hill nobody can compel the government to do what the motion and


says. If the government does not than the House of Lords is refusing


to consider this hot this indefinitely. Government wants to do


nothing. The government would have us believe, what is hinted at, is


that it is happy to look at things again. I do not accept his argument


on that. What is clear that might noble friend's a minute would force


the government to look again. They would have to look at this issue


again and see where they can make significant changes to protect those


who are currently terrified of the cuts to their income. My Lords, I


think that this is not a fatal apartment, it does not block the


government plans, and allows them to reconsider. What we have is a


constitutional duty to scrutinize, examine, and challenge. When the


government has clearly got it wrong they must think again. We were


sparring partners at a distance today, and even those voting with


the government tonight say that I have grave concerns about the


policy, I want to see change. The honourable Lady has to know that


they are voting because she is trying to make this a constitutional


issue, not because they can't be tax credit. We are given an opportunity


to address the concerns that have been expressed by peers and members


of Parliament of both parties, including very senior members, and


including those on the bench behind her. I want to address the question


of why he the motion has not been put forward like the Liberal


Democrats have? I think that in policy terms there is little between


us on this issue. I think that it is significant that a fatal motion was


only tabled after government had threatened retaliation to -- if the


Lordship's House amended the cuts. I think they let the government off


the hook a bit because there are more talking about constitutional


issues. I think that the important issue before us today is that


looking at how we can protect people from what the government has


proposed. My one regret is that we love the focus to be off the issue


and onto the Constitution. The government, having won the ball in


the comments, quickly returned with new primary registration --


legislation to avoid consideration to your Lordship soused. We believe


that's is the only consideration that can lead to considerable


change. The clamour of voices call them to think again, and that is the


right role for your Lordship's House to take. Those voices are clamoring,


not just here in Parliament, but in the children's society, think


tanks, as well as newspapers, who are poor on government. We have had


to think of the arguments as to whether this oversteps our


constitutional authority. It does not. I will give way. Could she tell


us how much the ladies per puzzle would cost? She is very keen to


tell. I had hoped that he had out would in his courteous way refer to


that the savings would come from the government automatically by the rise


in living wage of which three quarters of a billion each and every


year a cruise back to the government. Secondly, by the fact


that new claimants due to tax credits are not covered by -- and


third because the national office says that by 2019 over 90% of those


tax credits will be on universal credit, where they will have the


cuts. The government will have matching savings which probably


exceed the Barakat said that the government demands. My Lords, I


think that the point that the Noble Lord he makes... LAUGHTER date the


point that she makes is that this is a choice for the government, not a


necessity. I think that what we have seen over the last week, and it has


lightened all of us on the government reluctance to accept


challenge or proper scrutiny, there is no constitutional crisis looming


adult. -- at all. The prime minister has not dealt with a very serious


problems with this task are the policy. In the last Labour


government, we lost dozens of votes here in the House of Lords on a


range of issues. I'm at 18 -- on 18 -- on one Ko we accepted and moved


on. There was no point that this official opposition does not accept


the right of the government's legislation. It has to do so


properly, and must do a properly on getting things right all of the


time. On this case, we should really believe that the government has got


it wrong. I have to say that the threats that have been made to the


House of Lords as an institution is nothing more than Parliamentary


Bouvier. Threats to suspend the House of Lords, to cut borrowings,


do nothing to address the issues before us, and have given rise to


concerns. There is a need for true reform to your Lordship soused. --


house. Those threats have nothing to do with reform, and everything to do


with the government not wanting to be challenged, and not wanting to


think again. My Lords, I think that my final point is that this is a


common sense what to do things. This hostile to the issue, it considers


that, it think that the government has got it wrong, so we should send


it back to the government and urge them to rethink and comes back with


something significantly better at that doesn't harm and create


enormous fear in those people in work who are struggling to make ends


meet who are terrified of the letters that are going to come into


their letterboxes near Christmas. Will not exceed our authority, but


neither will we be cowed into neglecting our responsibilities to


making the government accountable. My Lords, the privilege of falls to


me as a deputy leader of winding up this debate, which has proved a


remarkable one. In a number of ways, a landmark in the proceedings of the


house. We have been treated to extremely powerful contributions


with for and against, and for and against amendments that have been


tabled. I listened with care to them all. I suggested to your lordships


that there are two aspects of the matter that we are here to consider.


The contents of the regulations themselves, and the issues, with


want of a better term, I will call the constitutional questions that


arise out of three of the amendments for us. Let me turn first to the


policy. Without unnecessarily going over the ground already covered by


my noble friend the Leader of the House, there is one central point to


be made at the outset. I make this point given and a number of the


noble Lords have seen fit to criticise both the intent and the


effects of what the government is seeking to achieve. The government


wants a new deal for working people. A deal whereby those who claim


neither tax credits nor universal credit, will all the ways be better


off in work, and always better off working more. The way that we are


doing this will mean that a typical family man or woman, working


full-time on the national with -- living wage, will be better off by


the end of this Parliament, substantially better off, then at


the beginning of it. That is the aim that we set for ourselves, and it is


an aim that runs parallel with our policy of incense, which we have


made it expressly clear for nearly two years now, they conservative


government, if and when elected, would look to find welfare savings


of around ?12 billion in order to reduce the public sector deficit. I


would simply say to the noble Baroness that the proposals that she


has constructively put forward in her contribution are in fact already


built into the assumptions that we have made. I am happy to look at her


proposals in more detail, but from what she has said the Chancellor has


already factored these points in the. Achieving these two policies


simultaneously is only possible if a series of measures are taken.


Measures that will move us from a position in which working households


are supported by a low wages and high tax credits, to one where there


are higher wages and lower tax credits. The regulations before us


today are only about the tax credit elements of the overall picture.


That is why it is unfair to pick up the report from the in of fiscal


studies, and to point with alarm to a large loss which a poor worker and


family might incur from a cut in tax credits, without also taking into


account other vitally important things that we are doing. The


counterbalance to lower tax credits is a commendation of positives. The


national living wage, the rise the income tax personal allowance, and


importantly... The Institute of fiscal studies is clear in


incorporating the effects of not only the tax credit changes, but


also the rise in the minimum wage and the international living wage,


as well as the increase in the income and tax thresholds, and then


make it very clear that the redistribution of fax of all of


these things from the port to the rich. I don't dispute that they


looked at these things, but the figure of ?1300 does not take into


account the positives that I have mentioned. Importantly, with


families with children, the doubling of free childcare should not be


overlooked. That, for many people, but not for all, will make it


possible to work longer hours. These are just some of the counterbalance


is. Noble Baroness chosen not to mention. I cannot pretend that these


have been easy decisions. However, I put it to the house that the


measures that we are taking are the right thing for us to be doing, not


right for individual working families, but also for the nation.


We are still, as a nation, living grossly beyond our means. Even so, a


out of ten working households will be better off by 2000 Stewart to


making than they are now, because of the combined effect of the measures


that we are now taking. 2017. Can he support that eight out of ten


households -- we have not had those impact assessments done. The


distribution analysis that came out at the time of the budget... Is the


Minister as saying that a out of ten people currently on tax credits are


being subject to these cuts, are they similarly going to be better


off? A out of ten working families, whether or not on tax credits... It


is an important point to factor in, because the rise in the national


living wage will affect not just of those on tax credits. Many millions


of others who are paid above that level in the so-called ripple effect


that has been widely affect. -- discussed. I wonder if the ministry


would than a focus on the two out of ten that he says are losers, and


tell us how many people those are, how many children there are in those


families, and what their loss is likely to be? We are talking about a


million people, largely children with families, and I think that he


will be able to confirm that they, in the lowest deciles of the


population in terms of poverty. Let me address that. It has been said by


some noble Lords and the noble Baroness is question implies that,


that the brunt of these savings will be those on tax credits. Those who


are worse off, I beg your pardon. That is not the case. The 10% of tax


credit on the highest income, ?42,000, a contributing nearly four


times as much to the savings that we are proposing as the poorest


claimant. That is an important point to factor in the. The problem of


talking about those at the lower end of the scale is that everyone's


circumstances are difficult -- different. Somehow people -- so that


children some doubt, some have disabilities some don't, and it is


very difficult to particular eyes. Why can I say is that the cutting


public spending that we are now proposing to these regulations is


one that will take us back, not to some far distant point in the past,


but to the levels of spending seen in 2007 two 2008, for the financial


crash. I'm talking about the spending in its totality. One cannot


particular eyes an individual case, because peoples circumstances would


be different. I am grateful for the Deputy leader for giving way. He is


giving a defence, and it does not give much of an indication that the


government will be thinking again as some members of the opposite bench


have been indicating. Before he came here today, I wonder if he spoke to


the leader of his party in Scotland? He said over the weekend


that "if we are not the party of getting people into work, there will


are we therefore? It is not acceptable. Dame is there, but we


cannot have people suffering on the way. The idea that there is a cliff


edge before the uptake and wages comes in is a real, practical, human


problem, and the government needs to look again at it. " With a? Those


questions fail to take into account what I've mentioned, the national


living wage... Wade maybe I wasn't clear when I indicated that that is


the leader of his party in Scotland. Wade I cannot take those


comments in any context having not read them. I heard what you reported


of the leader of the conservative party in Scotland, but I am not


aware of the general context of which she was speaking. I hope you


understand that. The budget for the entire nation's entire defence


spending... The regulations before us account for a ?4.4 billion of


public expenditure in the next financial year. That is a large


slice of the defence budget, but it is not the total defence budget. It


will, however, mean that the Chancellor has more money at his


disposal to spend on schools and hospitals, and on those with


disabilities. Incidentally, I would say to the Archbishop of York, the


national living wage is only possible because the economy of this


country is strengthening. It is strengthening because there is a


high degree of confidence in the government's economic programme, and


it's ability to deliver economic stability amongst other things,


reducing the deficit. One has to look at the totality of what the


Chancellor's programme looks at. My Lords... The living wage commission


which I chair was working with commissions and it was a good


climate. Weaver clear that those companies that can't afford to pay


should pay a living wage, and you'd be interested to note that even


before the economic stuff started brewing, there was an ethical


conviction that their workers, the greatest evil on her majesties


people is that some people are not being paid a living wage. Those


companies talk on the need to pay a living wage, even when the economy


was bad. The economy has proved, and if it has, why aren't we helping the


poorest and those most in need? We are doing so, and we are doing so


through the national living wage. We should welcome the fact that these


companies are paying the national living wage, and there are 200 major


companies already doing it. That is a good thing, and I congratulate him


for the work that he is done in this area. I don't think there's much


between us on this. Is an impression that was given that my suggestion as


-- he wants to cut four point for billing to the living wage, but the


report shows that 5 million are being paid a living wage and


there'll be a last tax credit on those. Because the people are is


over, that is why... It is interesting that the Institute for


Fiscal Studies said in the report that the Chancellor made quite a big


choice in the budget to protect some of the poorest people on tax


credits. That is self evidently true, and I would add in response to


the noble Baroness who I'm sorry is not her place, oh she is... Baker


pardon. The disabled, and severely disabled on the working tax credits


will not be cut to these measures. They will be operated by inflation,


and in fact the government is making savings in tax credits so they can


protect disability benefits, which have been protected from the


benefits freeze and the welfare cap, including a DLA, and the support


group component of the ESA as well as disability components of the tax


credits as I have mentioned. I hope that this is some reassurance. My


Lords, despite alibis -- why what we're doing is necessary and right,


I recognised that there are those who are in opposition and will


remain unpersuaded. Let me address of the amendments. Other than in the


rarest of circumstances, it is against the long-standing


conventions of this house, and therefore I would suggest for us to


not bow down or block secondary legislation. Those records


circumstances I would argue, do not include those -- this situation.


These noble Lords should not be challenging the House of Commons on


spending and taxation. That point was made by Lord Butler. The sums


involved are not trivial. The relations before us would account


for welfare savings of 4.4 billion in 2016. We can argue my Lords, and


I am interested in arguing by dumping that it would be profitable,


about the technicalities of whether these relations are or are not


financial. In substance, they are financial. I would, therefore say


that the Baroness's amendment should not be put to a vote. It's the


Baroness is situation is simple. There is a choice before this house,


either to a proof or not to approve these relations. It is a binary


choice. The noble Baroness's are inviting the house to withhold our


approval. We can argue endlessly, once again, about the technicality


of whether the wording of these amendments is or is not fatal in


nature. The reality is that if either amendment were passed, this


house would not have approved these relations. Is no good saying that


this would merely amounts to asking the House of Commons to think again.


I can do that with amendments to primary legislation, but with


secondary legislation there is no mechanism for a dialogue between the


houses, and no mechanism to allow the will of the comments to prevail


it in respect of this instrument. Does he accept that she does not ask


the House of Commons to think again, but to ask the government to


reconsider its proposals, she is asking the government to


reconsider? I accept that. Per amendment is asking the government


to do something other than what is in the regulations. By definition,


that means that if her amendment were carried, we could not bring


back the same set of proposals, and implementations of these relations


would not be delayed as the Baroness is suggesting, it would be thwarted


entirely. She is asking the House to accept a false proposition. Is very


interesting that the noble Baroness herself has recently given an


interview which certainly implies that her amendment is a fatal one.


The interview that she gave to the Huffington Post, she said that in


the interview if the memo were carried it would mean that the


government could not go ahead with the cuts. That, to me, is very fatal


indeed. My Lords, therefore. I'm surprised, with all of this


experience he seemed to be suggesting that there is no


significant difference between a fatal amendments and a nonfatal


amendments. In the kind I have been here, which is less than his, has


been a quite clear distinction. The Leader of the House seems to be


unclear about in her initial presentation. There is no


distinction between the Lib Dem amendment and the Labour amendment.


The difference is fundamental, and if he does not accept my


proposition, can he at least enlighten the House as to what the


professional advice from Clark has been to him and to the conservative


front bench as to which of these amendments are fatal, and which are


not? There is a clear difference in the wording, but the effect is


exactly the same. As my point. I have the greatest respect for him,


but in her speech my noble friend the Baroness said exquisitely that


she had drafted her amendment with the explicit help of the park of the


parliaments. The cart of the parliament said that it was not a


fatal amendments. The Lord challenging that? I cannot gainsay


the Clark of the parliaments. Heaven forbid. Perhaps what was meant that


the wording that the noble Baroness's amendment is not of a


kind one associates with a fatal amendments. Nevertheless they


traditionally worded fatal amendments is that, in the words of


the being the been lady Baroness... I am sure that she got good advice.


The best advice is that there is. What we are looking it at is that


what we're looking at what happened? It would frustrate the


governments intent. I would like to ask the Minister, does he think that


it would be impossible if these two amendments were parsed, -- past,


with vehemence be brought back? Be amended to hold the government


hostage. We might be able to bring back some different regulations, but


what if those were unacceptable to the house? Read their wording of the


amendment. It puts aside with perpetual treadmill. There is an


important distinction between the amendment of the Baroness and my


amendment. The crucial difference, not a fatal amendments, is that all


it asks for is some time and some information. Pays a very different


thing than asking the government to spend money on the transitional


arrangements. I have put on at this amendment for one reason, and that


is because the House of Commons has a cross party motion on Thursday,


which they will debate with eight conservative MPs. Does the Minister


accept that to give the government time to listen to the comments is


actually entirely inappropriate duty for this house to perform?


The fact is that the House of Commons with at this three times,


and has not overturned the proposal, in fact it has been approved, and I


would simply say to the noble Baroness that there is, if we're


talking about the advice given in Parliament, there is a crucial


difference between an amendment procedurally permissible to bring


before the House, and an amendment which it is constitutionally proper


for the House to approve. I do not take issue with the noble Baroness


bringing her motion here, or noble Baroness Lady Hollis, and what I do


take issue with is the idea that we should vote in favour of either of


them. Or indeed, that of the other one. Now, I need to conclude for the


House to withhold its consent to the regulations today, would in favour


of either of them. Or indeed, that of the other one. Now, I need to


conclude for the House to withhold its consent to the regulations


today, being overruling in the House of Commons, on an issue which that


House has already expressed its view one, three times, in other words, it


would mean doing what this house has not done, for more than a hundred


years, which is to seek to override the primacy of the House of Commons


on a financial matter. So I say, respectfully, to the noble Baroness


that there is a right way and a wrong way to challenge the


government policy, on a matter of this kind, and this is the wrong


way. The right way is either to table amendments such as the one in


the name of the right Reverend, not that I support it, but that is the


proper way of doing it, or for a suitable opportunity to table


amendment to a piece of primary legislation, and indeed there is a


bill coming to us shortly. The welfare reform work bill, which


would enable local lords to do that, should they so choose. So, my


contention is this: Been needs and regulations for a central plank of


the programme, on which the government was elected in May, a


programme that has been in the public domain for a long time,


however, even if they were not, even if these were policies dreamt up by


the chancellor overnight, I respectfully say to you that this


house under its conventions should not reject statutory adjustment, nor


seek to overturn the primacy of the other place on a matter of a very


sizeable public expenditure. And I therefore in light the sponsors of


each amendment to withdraw them, and I would urge the House to allow the


regulations to pass. And I would simply remind the House that in


order to support the motion, and the amendment in the name of the right


Reverend, the previous three amendments need either to be


withdrawn, or defeated. My book, I want to thank for the contributions


to this debate, and you will be relieved to hear that I do not


intend to summarise. All of the excellent contributions that have


been made from all sides of the House today. As your lordships now,


I'm a relatively new member of the lordships House, and for me, it is a


privilege to serve as a member of your lordships House, but with that


privilege, comes responsibility. My lords, tabling this motion was not


something I did a member of your lordships House, but with that


privilege, comes responsibility. My lords, tabling this motion was not


something I did likely. On the role of this house, and I do not believe


that this is a situation in which the House should find itself


regularly. However, ultimately, and this is about this house making a


decision on whether we think it is acceptable for the government to cut


off vital support for 3 million families, which it claims to


support. Is about whether we think it is acceptable for the prime


minister to make these changes, not via primary legislation, but by a


procedural instrument, in direct contradiction of what he set to be


able to do during the general election. Is about whether we think


it is acceptable for this house to relinquish its responsibilities to


those affected. I welcome the Leader of the House saying that the


Chancellor will be listening to this debate very carefully. And I hope


also, in my lords, I could not look myself in the eye tomorrow. I did


not too I could to stop this devastating measure going through. I


know that many in my party feel the same, and while I hold no ill will


against anyone that do not share our view, I hope that those who are


doing this in the lives of those 4.9 million children should be our


primary concern, and join us in the voting lobbies. Tax credit cuts for


the low-paid working families are short-sighted, and deeply damaging,


not only for parents and children, that will bear the cost, but also


for the government's on long term goals. I urge the government to


rethink, and I hope that the House will choose to reject the


regulations, as they stand. I wish to test the opinion of the House. My


lords, I beg to move. The question is that the amendment in the name of


the Baroness be agreed to. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To


the contrary, "no". I think the noes have it.


My lords, my lords. LAUGHTER The question is that the


As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The


ayes, will go to the right, and the noes will go to the left.


My lords, my lords. The question is that this mad dash amendment be


approved. -- amendment.


Download Subtitles