I shall not contest the precedent given by the noble Lord, which I have not myself considered. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, is, transparently, a fatal one; she agrees with that—and, in my view, it is outside your Lordships’ constitutional role. I note that my noble friend Lady Meacher agrees with that view. The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and my noble friend Lady Meacher, raise a more subtle issue. They are not fatal, but they seek to defer our consideration of the statutory instrument until the Government have done certain things specified in the amendment, including, in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, surrendering some of the savings that would be achieved by this measure. But they are still blocking amendments. I can best demonstrate that by the following question. What happens if the Government refuse to do what the amendments demand? Will your Lordships then refuse to consider the statutory instruments for ever and a day? In that case, these amendments would block the statutory instrument indefinitely, which in my view is not within the—
Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Butler of Brockwell
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 26 October 2015.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
765 c1007 
Session
2015-16
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2020-04-28 14:05:26 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-10-26/15102618000068
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-10-26/15102618000068
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-10-26/15102618000068