I hear what the noble Baroness says but, as far as the financial privilege of the House of Commons is concerned, if this House decides to vote for my noble friend Lady Hollis’s amendment—as I hope it will—it would not kill the statutory instrument. It would not mean that it was dead. It would mean that its implementation was delayed. According to the clerks—and I understand it is broadly accepted by most people—that is not a fatal attack upon these regulations. If the House were to do that, we would get the best of both worlds. I am not in favour of voting for the Liberal Democrat amendment because I do not, on the whole, think that voting for fatal amendments on statutory instruments is a good thing for this House to do, and I do not think I have ever done it. However, an amendment to postpone the statutory instrument until the other House has a chance to look at the evidence that has now arisen makes a great deal of sense. I hope that, when it comes to a vote, that is what will happen.
Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Richard
(Labour)
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 c1011 
Session
2015-16
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2020-04-28 14:05:30 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-10-26/15102625000021
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-10-26/15102625000021
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-10-26/15102625000021