Tax Credit cuts may be cancelled by House of Lords

[squidzin]

Sorry if there's already a thread on this...

A veto to the Tory's highly controversial decision to cut working tax credits, is to be voted on within the House of Lords on 29th Oct.

The move is constitutional because the cuts were not in the manifesto.

m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8326878

A government with an elected majority can pass whatever legislation it likes in the House of Commons. The House of Lords can then veto that legislation unless it was in the manifesto.

Except they can't, for several different reasons.

The manifesto thing is a convention (the Salisbury Convention) and not law.

A bill relating to benefits is almost certainly a "money bill", and therefore (Parliament Act 1911) the Lords can only delay it for a month.

Even if it weren't a money bill (and it is) the Parliament Act 1949 means it could be passed after a year. But that would be a nuclear option, and if the Lords tried that the Tories wouldn't have any problems amending the Parliament Act to emasculate the Lords still further.

Yes Ricardian, I was over simplifying massively in response to some slightly baffled early posts and a poster suggesting that any bill that wasn't in the manifesto was unconstitutional.

It seems like it's not going ahead under Meacher, but Hollis?

www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/21/house-of-lords-table-motion-to-block-44bn-cuts-to-tax-credits

Together the Lib Dems and Labour have the numbers in the Lords to defeat the Government (presuming the cross benchers would split or not vote which seems likely given Meacher's interviews). Why then have they tabled two alternate motions rather than agreeing one way ahead to stop these reforms? Together they could stop this, acting separately they cannot.

Three alternative motions will be considered. See this link and scroll down to under Monday's date:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/minutes/151022/ldordpap.htm

The problem now is the Conservatives have been backed in a corner and if they don't go ahead they will look weak. They know it's wrong but can't admit and won't admit that.

Summer am I correct in understanding that the 3 alternative motions will be considered and voted on in turn? It appears to me that it would be possible to be in favour of all 3 or at the other end of the spectrum just in favour of the first one?

Monday 26 HoL motions to make it easier for peeps:

'Childcare Bill [HL] Third Reading [Lord Nash]

Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 Lord O’Neill of Gatley to move that the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 September be approved. 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

†Baroness Manzoor to move, as an amendment to the above motion, to leave out all the words after "that" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 September."

†Baroness Meacher to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of Lord O’Neill of Gatley, to leave out all the words after "that" and insert "this House declines to consider the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 September until the Government lay a report before the House, detailing their response to the analysis of the draft Regulations by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and considering possible mitigating action."

†Baroness Hollis of Heigham to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of Lord O’Neill of Gatley, to leave out "approved" and insert "not considered until the Government, following consultation, have reported to Parliament a scheme for full transitional protection for a minimum of three years for all low-income families and individuals currently receiving tax credits before 5 April 2016, such transitional protection to be renewable after three years with parliamentary approval."

I wonder why the press reported that Baroness Meacher had backed out? It's quite confusing. I also don't understand why there are three motions? Is that better or worse than one?

Worse. If the Lib Dems for their motion (The first) and Labour vote for theirs (the third) then neither will have a majority in their own. If both parties agree the same approach then they have the numbers to vote together and easily defeat the government.

38 degrees petition for anyone who wants to sign speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns/339

29,000 signatures so far. Could really do with a few folks bumping this one so it gets out to the wider Mumsnet audience!

So many low income working families will be worse off under the new legislation. So unfair to target these groups in the cuts, while refusing to impose a mansion tax!

.

Thanks Lexi

Signed

Bump

Thanks everyone!

Just found a far bigger petition with 277,000 signatures. Annoying that there is more than one floating around, but good that so many have sigbed up! Hopefully someone will collate the results before submitting.

Here is the link for those wishing to sign!

speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns/stop-child-tax-credit-cuts

The first petition is to the HoL who seem to be far more interested in protecting poor people than the recipient of the second petition.