Tax credits: Baroness Hollis delivers powerful speech as House of Lords rejects Conservative proposal

[Vouthon]

independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tax-credits-baroness-hollis-delivers-powerful-speech-as-house-of-lords-rejects-conservative-proposal-a6710011.html

**Tax credits: Baroness Hollis delivers powerful speech as House of Lords rejects Conservative proposal

PM claims the decision by the House of Lords to delay the bill has raised a ‘constitutional crisis’

Conservative plans to reduce tax credits for the lowest paid workers have been left in chaos after a historic intervention by the House of Lords, most notably Baroness Hollis.

The Labour peer, formerly a work and pensions minister, addressed a rapt House as she savaged Chancellor George Osborne’s plans to cut tax credits in order to save an estimated £4.4 billion.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham, who called for a three-year delay before implementing the proposal, commanded the full attention of the chamber as she adopted the style favoured by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and read out examples from real people.
**

“Angela from Stevenage”, she noted, will lose £1,643.

“I already work 40 hours a week on minimum wage doing two jobs around my children,” the Baroness read to a silent House. “I cannot believe this is actually going to happen. I am terrified. We are not scroungers. We work unbelievably hard just to keep going and once again we are being punished for trying to earn a living wage.”

She described the situation of “Tony and Jacinta Goode,” from Norwich. Mr Goode is a full-time fire-fighter and Mrs Goode cares for “two substantially disabled children.”

“They are exhausted. Their Christmas letter will tell them that they will lose £60 a week, or £3,120 a year. That is £3,120 from a family where he is in full-time work and she is caring for two disabled children. We do not need to do this to them.”

“We really, my Lords, don’t need to do this,” she repeated.

Her quietly emotive and powerful speech was overwhelmingly positively received, with many social media users tweeting their respect for the peer.

Unsurprising response from the Conservatives:

news.sky.com/story/1576861/what-now-for-the-house-of-lords

David Cameron has warned the House of Lords he will be reviewing the power wielded by peers in the wake of the double defeat on tax credit cuts.

But what does it all mean? We answer some of the key questions about the upper chamber…

**The upper chamber is unelected and therefore does not reflect the will of the people in the way the Commons does.
**

**In this case, peers have argued that MPs were not reflecting the will of the people because the Conservatives refused to spell out the details of the £12bn welfare cuts they proposed before the election.

David Cameron was pressed on it. Repeatedly. In fact in a Question Time special he said that child tax credits would not fall.

Peers say in this case, therefore, the Lords is more reflective of the public view than the Government – a recent Sky Data poll showed half the public opposed the cuts, only 31% supported them.

And remember the Lords is there to hold the Government to account. It inflicted 99 defeats on the Coalition government.
**
Calls for House of Lords reform have been numerous – there are 826 peers compared to 650 elected MPs, which seems an extraordinary expense.

But, until now, Mr Cameron has had little appetite for tackling the problem. (He forced Nick Clegg to shelve plans to reform the upper chamber in 2012).

Actually, he has created peers at a faster rate than any other Prime Minister since life peerages began in 1958.

In the wake of the tax credit cuts vote though, Mr Cameron has promised/threatened a “rapid review” of powers.

He will basically look at how the rules/conventions can be tightened to make very sure the Lords cannot monkey with finance matters again.

He has also threatened to flood the Lords with Conservative peers – the reason the Government was dished defeat was because there is not a Tory majority in the upper chamber.

This would be unpopular though.

 

[Vouthon]

The House of Lords is an unelected second chamber. I find it incredible that this House, designed to be a check on the excesses of the democratically elected lower House of Commons, so that it does not result in the “tyranny of the majority” and ride roughshod minority interests without legislative scrutiny, has more compassion and more reason than our elected MPs.

I have always upheld the efficacy of the role played by Peers (the appointed Lords) in our political system. Because they do not have to campaign for election, they can sometimes work for the good of the public as a whole without having to pander to lobbies or short-term interests just to stay in power.

I think that every parliamentary, constitutional democracy benefits from the foresight of such people. I actually know one of the Peers in the House of Lords. He is a Catholic Scot from a working class background who became a successful entrepreneur and was given a life peerage and the title of Baron a few years ago. He is a Labour supporter.

People like him have a lot to offer the country and can work for the common good in a manner distinct from our elected politicians but complementing their important role.

I am reminded of St. Thomas Aquinas’ view of the ideal government in the Summa:

newadvent.org/summa/2105.htm

Article 1. Whether the Old Law enjoined fitting precepts concerning rulers?

…

I answer that, Two points are to be observed concerning the right ordering of rulers in a state or nation. One is that all should take some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring, as stated in Polit. ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in respect of the kinds of government, or the different ways in which the constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first place is held by the “kingdom,” where the power of government is vested in one; and “aristocracy,” which signifies government by the best, where the power of government is vested in a few. **Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.
**

Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue: for it is written (Deuteronomy 1:15): “I took out of your tribes wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers”: so that there was an element of aristocracy. But it was a democratical government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (Exodus 18:21): “Provide out of all the people wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people; wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 1:13): “Let me have from among you wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law.