Latest defeat for the government in the House of Lords - help me understand this!

[bananaistheanswer]

OK, I'm trying not to get carried away over this but given the massive defeat that this was, what are the implications? DWP simply says they'll seek to overturn this in the Commons. Now, does a defeat of this magnitude mean that they'll table amendments, or do they just get it voted through again in the Commons, to go back to the Lords demonstrating the breathtaking level of arrogance this government seems to have? Is there some way around a defeat in the Lords that means no matter who opposes it, it'll happen anyway 'cos it's what the tories want? Do they simply call in favours get out the thumb screws on tory/libdem peers?

I'm genuinely amazed at just how massive the vote against the proposals was. And while I bask in this a little for now, I am not filled with huge confidence that the condems will listen to anyone and change their proposals on charging the parent with care for having to use the CSA to secure maintenance.

So, educate me please if you can!

There are a few possibilities. The unelected House of Lords is really there as a legislative backstop, to assess the legalities and practicalities of bills put to them and examine if there are any obvious loopholes or contradictions etc. Bills can then be amended and returned to the Lords which may be what happens in this case. Alternatively, if the elected government thinks the Bill does not need amendment and is too important to delay there are ways in which they can be forcibly passed using the Parliament Act. The last time this was used was for the Hunting Act of 2004. Blair couldn't get it passed by the Lords and forced it through using the Parliament Act instead.

The reason why so many people are against the very concept of a House of Lords is because of situations like this where the elected representatives of the people are blocked by unelected politically biased appointees.

The House of Lords do a great job. It's filled with experts who know what they're talking about unlike politicians who always have one eye on the opinion polls. We need a check on the Commons especially when a) many MPs don't turn up to debate important legislation b) they're thinking about re-election and c) we don't have a majority government.

Thank God for the House of Lords.

I do wonder if the government will try and tweak it to get it through again . We'll see.......

Thanks Cognito for that, I knew there was something about getting round a defeat in the Lords and Blair was in my mind - I just couldn't remember the details. I personally think in this case, the Lords are listening to the objections and protests to this bill, and have acted accordingly. The MPs don't seem to be listening. I wrote to mine about this proposal, and just got waffle back from the minister dealing with it, ignoring my concerns and pretty much everyone else who have been pointing out the obvious - you don't go to the CSA if you are able to reach a private agreement. It's blatantly clear this proposal is designed to put people off engaging with the CSA, irrespective of the reasons it's needed. And that just takes money away from kids who need it.

I don't doubt the government will wriggle their way around this somehow, but it's awesome that so many stood up for single parents who are doing their bit to raise their kids as best they can. A breath of fresh air IMO. And all the sweeter knowing that this was led by a tory peer, supported by other senior tory peers. It makes no sense whatsoever to charge a parent who is already supporting their kids, for having to use the CSA to force the other parent to provide financial support as well.

The basic rule of thumb is that for every three defeats a Bill suffers in the House of Lords the Government will have to accept one, offer compromise amendments on one and will be able to force the third through.

Some but not all Bills can be forced through without consent of the Lords using the Parlaiment Acts but it is a lengthy process. In the case of the Welfare Reform Bill the fight between the two Houses would have to continue until the end of this parliamentary Session (so around Easter). Then the Government would have to re-introduce the Bill in the new Session (so May-ish) in the exact form it was introduced at the start of this Session (so without all the amendments the Gov itself has put in during the time the Bill has been in Parliament). The Bill would have to go through the Commons stages all over again, be sent to the Lords again and if after a further 6 months the Lords still will not agree then the Parliament Acts can be used. This would be too long for this Government to wait for this Bill so they will have to compromise on some of the defeats to get their Bill on time.

Thanks augbergine. That's interesting. I'm just wondering how the government are going to respond to this, other than the stroppy reply from DWP. At least there is maybe some scope for a better proposal. One that actually helps secure maintenance for children, rather than obstructs it.

It's very subjective, that's the problem. If you agree with their decision they are a noble body of experts standing up for the ordinary man and their vote should be respected. If you disagree with their decision (as in the Hunting Bill example) they are bunch of out of touch unelected toffs pushing their own interests who deserve to be ignored with the Parliament Act. The Lords are increasingly poltically motivated because they are now mostly old campaigners appointed by political parties and therefore not quite as independent as maybe they once were. Nick Clegg is one person very keen to reform the House of Lords to be 80% elected and this kind of thing will speed things up, no doubt..

I think, on this issue, paying for the CSA will be sacrificed for the expedition of the bill.

Charging people to use CSA who have absolutely no choice in using it because their partner is being obstructive is just mad and very glad it got blocked.

I do support welfare reform and we need the CSA to work better - but surely not this way. Sure, if people can come to a fair agreement with impartial advice then the CSA dont need to be involved - but that does not always happen.

I agree Cognito, it is pretty subjective. But, I'm going to enjoy this not so small victory while it last, as it's just so rare for anyone to actually stand up for single parents.

How will electing the peers make it any better?

I didn't agree with the Hunting thing but from memory, there were some good arguments against it (ie as in not banning) which someone ran me through after the event. Also the Lords didn't block it outright from memory, the amendments related to winding down hunts etc?

Actually, having a think about this defeat, I don't think I'm being blinkered in thinking that this is actually one of those ones where the peers are the 'noble group of experts standing up for the little people' as it was a massive defeat, across party lines, and headed by a Tory peer, supported by other senior tory peers including some who served under Thatcher. This wasn't a partisan issue, which is what surprised me the most.

Will be keeping an eye on how the government responds to this.

I hope you are right Cogito. The idea of paying for the use of the CSA was fundamentally flawed.

As for the Lords, I often find they seem to be more in touch with public opinion than the commons. But not always.

Cogito - the Welfare Reform Bill defeats have not really been a result of political appointees put in the Lords to play party politics.

The CSA defeat was an amendment in the name of Lord Mackay of Clashfern QC an ex-Tory Lord Chancellor who has been in the Lords for many, many years.

The defeat on the £26k benefits cap was an amendment in the name of a Bishop.

The defeat on means-testing ESA for disabled people and the defeat on removing the time limit on ESA payments from people receiving treatment for cancer, were both amendments from Lord Patel, an indepdendent crossbench Peer and former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians.

Finally, the defeat that will allow young people unable to work because of disability to receive the ESA was an amendment from Baroness Meacher another independent cross bench Peer whose career has mainly been in social work and mental health work.

On this occasion, you're right. There have been some cross-party coalitions and many voting against the party that put them in the House. But, since the Lords tends to be fairly evenly balanced across the main parties because PMs appoint mostly their own supporters when places come free, it doesn't take many to change allegiance in order to cause an upset. Out of 793 there are 243 Labour, 218 Conservative, 93 Lib Dem, 184 Crossbenchers, 25 bishops and a few others. FWIW I don't think being a bishop means someone is particularly 'in touch'. Public opinion (outside the world of MN) was very much behind the benefits cap, for example, and the bishop's arguments sounded rather romanticised by comparison.