Church leads assault on Chancellor ‘Holding us to ransom’
Osborne’s cut in tax credits condemned as ‘devoid of morals and ethics’ in full-scale Lords rebellion
THE Church of England yesterday mounted an assault on George Osborne’s tax credit reforms as bishops described the welfare cuts as “devoid of morals and ethics”.
The Archbishop of York warned that the cuts risked leaving people “in the hands of loan sharks”.
Another bishop warned that the Chancellor’s plans “blatantly threaten damage to the lives of millions of our fellow citizens”.
They joined dozens of Conservative Labour and Liberal Democrat peers who spoke out against the £4.4 billionworth of tax credit cuts.
The objections came despite a number of bishops tabling a motion of “regret” that allows peers to express disapproval without blocking the cuts outright.
Speaking in the Lords, both the Bishop of Portsmouth and the Archbishop of York attacked Mr Osborne’s welfare reforms in strong terms.
Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, suggested that the living wage should be brought in before tax credit cuts are introduced.
He said: “Do you want people to be driven to the loan sharks of this country? Britain is at risk of becoming a place where the haves and have nots live in parallel worlds.”
The Rt Rev Christopher Foster, the Bishop of Portsmouth, said: “These proposals are morally indefensible. It’s clear to me and many others that these proposals blatantly threaten damage to the lives of millions of our fellow citizens.
“This must not be the way to achieve the Government’s goal at a cost to those, who if we believe the rhetoric, the Government intends to encourage and support. To many in my diocese and beyond this seems punishing rather than encouragement.”
Earlier this year, David Cameron said that he “profoundly disagrees” with the leaders of the Church of England after they accused the Coalition of creating a country in which the poor are being “left behind”.
Osborne ‘listening’
Baroness Stowell, the Conservative Leader of the House of Lords, warned that Labour and Liberal Democrat motions to kill or delay the cuts would take Parliament into “uncharted territory”.
She suggested that Mr Osborne was only prepared to “listen” to the concerns of peers if they supported the “motion of regret”.
She described the motion, which enabled peers to register their discontent without affecting the passage of legislation, as a more “precedented” approach.
The Labour and Liberal Democrat motions, she warned, would “challenge the primacy of the Commons on financial matters”.
‘Punishing the strivers’
Baroness Hollis, a Labour peer who tabled a motion calling for the cuts to be delayed, said that claims that she would provoke a constitutional crisis were a “fig leaf ”.
She said: “It’s about respect for those who strive to do everything we ask of them and now find themselves punished for doing what is right.” Baroness Smith of Basildon, the shadow leader of the Upper House, accused ministers of attempting to “bully” the Lords.
Baroness Manzoor, a Liberal Democrat peer who tabled a “fatal motion” to try to kill off the cuts, warned that the cuts would “have a severe impact” on the poor.
Another motion tabled by Baroness Meacher, a cross-bench peer, called on the Government to respond to concerns raised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
In one of the most powerful interventions, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, a disabled cross-bencher, warned that the cuts would “dramatically reduce the incomes of disabled people”.
She said: “There is little doubt this will negatively impact on the Government’s other policy which is to halve the disability employment gap.”
Conservative grandees
Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, said that he was “torn” by the vote because he believes tax credits will do “great harm” to the poorest. However, he said that “the constitution is more important than nit-picking” and that he would therefore not support the Labour or Liberal Democrat motions. Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a former Tory lord chancellor, warned that blocking the regulations would be a breach of the “fundamental privilege” of the Commons.
Peers must ‘bite lips’
Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary, warned peers would be committing a “constitutional infringement of great gravity” if they backed any of the motions blocking tax credit changes. He praised peers in the past for having “exercised self-restraint” and “bitten” their lip by not voting down government finance changes and called on Lib Dem and Labour peers to do the same. Closing the debate, Earl Howe, the deputy Conservative leader in the Lords, warned that Labour’s amendment would “hold the Government hostage”. He said: “We might be able to bring back some different regulations but what if those were unacceptable to the House? It puts us on to a perpetual treadmill.”
Whipping operation
Lord Lloyd-Webber, the Tory peer and composer, was reportedly called back from New York to vote on the changes as Conservative whips undertook a “frantic” operation.
Dozens more Conservative peers turned out to vote than normally attend House of Lords debates in a sign of how seriously the Government took the challenge.
“Tories seemed to have gone to great expense to bring almost everyone in,” said a Labour source.