Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Hughes of Woodside
Main Page: Lord Hughes of Woodside (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Hughes of Woodside's debates with the Ministry of Defence
(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberIf the House of Commons asks for more information, it should be provided. But the constitutional position is that the House of Commons has passed this statutory instrument, and it cannot go back on that. Now what is at issue is whether the House of Lords should pass it, and however much sympathy the House may have for the objectives of those who have moved 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. It may be a welfare matter as well, but it is certainly a budgetary matter. Secondly, it is crucial to the fiscal policy that was explicit in the manifesto on which the Government were elected only a short time ago. Thirdly, the statutory instrument has been passed by the House of Commons, which has that responsibility in our constitutional arrangements. It has been passed not once but three times. I am afraid that I cannot find myself persuaded—
Would the noble Lord realise that he is turning his back and not addressing the House, and he should learn the procedures, given his experience?
I am sorry, my Lords, and I apologise if I have committed a constitutional impropriety, but I still do not understand quite the point that the noble Lord makes.
I am afraid that I am not persuaded by the argument made by the noble Baroness that this House—