Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is good to follow such an eloquent and powerful plea by my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. He has in fact invited me to go to Uxbridge since I recently pointed out some of the failings of its eateries. I also thank the Minister for her eloquent and helpful introduction, and join in the congratulations to the maiden speakers, the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart—with whom I fenced on occasions on the issue of Europe, but I am glad now that it was not real fencing—and the noble Lord, Lord Field, who like me is a ’79er, having entered the House of Commons in 1979. It is great to see him now here in the Lords. Both made excellent maiden speeches. I also declare an interest, not on this occasion as a former chair of Age Scotland but as a recipient of the retirement pension—I think others here might have a similar interest in that as well.

For once, I wholeheartedly support what the Government are doing. Some people have been a bit equivocal about it, but I am not in any way. In fact, I was very disappointed that the House of Lords Committee on Intergenerational Fairness recommended getting rid of the triple lock. I think it was a terrible mistake, and I have expressed my concern to the four Labour members of the committee, and indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—who like me used to work for Age Concern—for making that recommendation. I do not know about the noble Baroness, but I actually declare my pension in my income tax return, along with my occupational pension, and pay tax on it, so there is a clawback on that. But basic pensioners, who rely on the state pension, are those we are concerned about.

When one looks at the situation for the United Kingdom, one finds that we are the worst of the developed countries in the OECD. The OECD average pension is 63% of average earnings; in the European Union, it is 71%; in the Netherlands, it is 101% of average earnings, but in the United Kingdom, it is 29%. The triple lock has edged it up over a period, but it is still very low as far as the European comparisons are concerned.

I understand that people are concerned about children in poverty; I have heard that from my noble friend Lady Lister and others. Of course there is a huge problem there, but is it not wrong to penalise the already poor by taking money away from them, only to give it to those who are even poorer? The poor will get poorer. I do not disagree with all the requests to consider uprating other benefits, so what do we do? How do we pay for it?

During the pandemic, the poor have been getting poorer, while UK billionaires have seen their personal wealth rise by £25 billion. Hedge funds have done well; Jacob Rees-Mogg will tell you that. Some shares have gone up; people have made a killing there. The personal wealth of the UK’s top earner, Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos, is between £18 billion to £20 billion, but what has he done? He has moved to Monaco so that he can avoid paying tax. These billionaires have a responsibility, and it is about time that we pinpoint that and say it even more loudly.

Philip Green and his wife Tina have a yacht in Monaco. Again, they are avoiding tax. Their company is registered in the tax haven of Jersey so they can avoid paying a fair share of tax. They have a £100 million yacht on which they can sip champagne with Jim Ratcliffe, because he has gone out there now as well. Jim Ratcliffe can admire the birthday present that Tina bought Philip: a pure-gold Monopoly set. On that Monopoly set are the premises that Philip Green owns. This is conspicuous consumption gone absolutely mad.

Let us think about that. Let us think about taxing people who can afford to pay tax, and not take away from the little bit more that pensioners are getting, slowly but surely taking them towards the European average.

Finally, I have a few questions for the Minister about the Bill, which, as I say, I support unequivocally. The briefing says that the pension will be “potentially increased”. Can she make it absolutely clear that that potential will become a reality? I assume that it will, because otherwise why put it into the Bill? However, it would be nice just to have that confirmed.

The triple lock, as others have said, is based on the rate of inflation, the rate of earnings, or 2.5%—whichever is the highest. Can we assume that the increase will therefore be at least 2.5%? Again, some people have assumed that in their speeches, and it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that.

I am really pleased that the Conservative Government have done this. The Labour Government did it in the early 2000s, with the economic problems that we had then. I hope that we will do a lot more in relation to the take-up of pension credit. I was going to raise that point again, as others have raised it. However, as the Minister knows, I have a Parliamentary Question coming up specifically on the take-up of pension credit, so I will leave that for now and ask her a few questions on that occasion. Meanwhile, I give her my unequivocal support on this rare occasion.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench on the clarity with which she has introduced this Report, and I thank her and the Bill team for the time, effort, care and consideration they have taken with Members, which is best illustrated by the number of government amendments which have rightly been brought forward at this stage in our proceedings. She has clearly demonstrated what can be achieved collaboratively in the legislative process when it is approached with such openness. She and her team absolutely epitomise a truth that everyone should constantly remind themselves of: two ears, one mouth.

The pensions proposition is one of the greatest creations of civilisation, but just in my lifetime—without giving away my age, I am only slightly younger than my noble friend Lord Naseby—we can see that the proposition has changed, not so as to be unrecognisable but significantly. It started out with a commitment by employers to have defined benefits where they would take the risk. The fund was rightly separated from the employer under the governance model of a trust. That clear separation of powers was eminently sensible because something as significant as someone’s retirement nest egg should be separated from the corporate entity so that if, God forbid, anything should happen to the corporate entity, the pension fund would remain. What has occurred in recent years is an extraordinary shift of that risk, if not a wholesale one, from the employer to the employee, hence the explosion of defined contribution schemes. In reality, neither position is where an individual, a group or even a society would wish to be, given that so much of the risk falls on to one or other of the parties. That is why CDCs have a lot to recommend them, not just in the combining of resources and the pooling of risks, which is a great advantage, but in the positive implications that the initials “CDC” have in other areas of our lives. Let us consider the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We should take something from the positivity of the acronym because it has a lot to recommend it.

This would certainly not be necessary had we not seen some of the changes, not least to how schemes were funded and how the funds were treated, particularly from the taxation point of view. That was one of the biggest nails in the coffin of defined benefit schemes. However, that is water long under the bridge. CDC schemes will become increasingly significant to pension provision as we go forward. They are a positive contribution to this area and I wish this Bill a speedy passage through your Lordships’ House, and its equally speedy consideration and passage through the other place.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her introduction and for returning to her usual helpful mode on this occasion, unlike during questions the other day. I hope that it does not do her any harm with her Whips, but we are very grateful to her.

I want to speak in support of Amendment 33, which has not yet been moved, although I hope that we will hear later from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I nearly said “Barnard Castle” but that is a more notorious place.

Diversity, whether based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic background or disability, continues to be a key issue facing our society today. Indeed, diversity is still lacking across many FTSE companies in key sectors such as engineering, science, technology and banking, not to mention in this House and the other place.

In the pensions sector, many pension fund trustees and the top levels of executive teams also lack diversity. Some progress has been made. Nevertheless, data from the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association indicates that, overwhelmingly, private sector pension fund trustees are male. The Pensions Regulator also found that about half of the chairs and a third of the trustees are over 60 years old. With no disrespect to my noble friend Lord Naseby—whom I must be nice to as he is doing a good job on the board of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, in which I must declare an interest—I think that this is a bit of an imbalance.

Of course I am concerned. In other areas, older people are discriminated against on grounds of age, but in this instance it is younger people who are underrepresented on boards, which make decisions of importance to them as well. With the introduction of auto-enrolment, which has brought about more and more young savers, as well as a greater focus on those in society who are “under-pensioned”, such as women and ethnic minorities, it is important that trustees managing the increasingly diverse pension profile also become increasingly diverse to reflect these savers. Requiring pension schemes to provide information on the diversity of the boards helps to provide some form of greater transparency and opportunities for the better governance of pension schemes.

To add to that, I believe that, although reporting on diversity is important, it may be of equal, if not greater, importance for schemes to be required to provide plans on how they hope to achieve better diversity on their boards of trustees. I hope that the Minister will continue in the helpful manner with which she started and that she will give the House, and me, some encouragement in this direction in her reply.

Universal Credit: Court of Appeal Judgment

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott [V]]

I assure my noble friend and the whole House that the universal credit system has stood up well to the increased demand of 600% additional cost. I have repeated the Answer that my ministerial colleague gave in the other House. We are determined to find a fix for this. We will keep the House updated, but we will need time to consider the judgment, which was issued only last Monday.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister, who is usually very helpful on these kinds of questions, has not answered the questions put by my noble friend. If the computer system is as agile as she and her colleagues keep claiming it is, why can it not resolve this single issue quickly and give these people the justice they deserve? When will she answer the single, simple question: when will it be resolved?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott [V]]

I say again to the noble Lord that we are considering the judgment. We are working at pace to find a fix. The universal credit system, which has dealt with a massive increase in applicants, who have been paid, has been agile and flexible to do so. Some issues need to be overcome. They need a digital solution rather than a manual one. We have concentrated on paying people in these very difficult times, but I assure the noble Lord that a digital fix will be found as soon as it can.

Automatic Enrolment (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as one of the three Scottish Peers participating in this debate along with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, with whose remarks I agree fully, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—who I think was educated at Fortrose Academy and then the University of Aberdeen, so he has a great interest in the offshore oil industry—I welcome and want to concentrate on the offshore employment order. I also welcome the removal of the sunset clause and the continued cross-party co-operation on automatic enrolment, which was introduced by the Labour Government. However, as I understand it, there is an income threshold of £10,000, which would disadvantage lower-paid and part-time workers. If this is correct, can the Minister take this away and look at it again? She is usually very helpful on such matters.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I will take this opportunity to make a few comments on the situation of the North Sea oil industry as it affects Scotland as a whole, but Aberdeen in particular. As he said, the price of a barrel of crude oil, which was once $120 then $70 as recently as January, is now half that. This threatens further job losses in the industry. As a member of the organisation Peers for the Planet, I want to see the use of carbon fuels reduced. But, equally, there needs to be a plan to provide alternative jobs in the green energy sector—in wind, in tidal and in other alternative energies—so that those who are displaced from the oil industry as it runs down can get a new job. Aberdeen, which once prospered through fish and then oil, needs another major industry to keep its prosperity.

Returning to the order, I join in the tributes to the front-line DWP staff who have worked tirelessly during this pandemic crisis. Finally, I thank the Minister for her usual courtesy, which I hope she will continue by agreeing with some of the things I have said.

Household Income

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I can assure the noble Baroness and the House that our work coaches receive regular training and development in respect of sanctions, and that sanctions are a last resort. Recent changes have been made to the length of sanctions and they will be used only when absolutely necessary.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, some of the people who are suffering the most are pensioners relying on the basic pension. If the coronavirus outbreak gets worse and more and more people are confined to their homes, they will have to rely on the television for information as well as for entertainment, and yet free TV licences are due to be withdrawn on 1 June. Will the Minister go back to her department with all seriousness and compassion and see whether, at the very least, the withdrawal of free TV licences can be postponed?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I can assure the noble Lord that everything I do at this Dispatch Box is done with sincerity and compassion. The point he has raised about television licences is outside my brief, but I will find somebody to talk to about it.

Bereavement Services

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

Again, it is important that people understand the support that is available to them. I will go back to the policy officials and see if we cannot do something a little more robust to up the ante on the campaign.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on doing exactly what a Lords Minister should: listening to what Members of this House say and then taking it back to her department and asking it to consider that. Could she give some advice to those sitting around her?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I learned everything that I do at this Dispatch Box from these colleagues.

Universal Credit Fraud

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, of course we take this extremely seriously, as I say. We have to be extremely careful to ensure that victims are properly looked after and supported through the process, but also that those who have committed fraud have the full force of criminal justice thrown at them. This is crime. I look forward to the latest British attitudinal survey being published imminently, because the last survey showed that people on the whole felt that some crime was fine, as long as it was not a lot of crime. We have to confront this, look after those who need our support and use our brilliant fraud and investigation teams, working with the CPS, to make sure that those who have committed the crime are brought to justice.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate, I am a little confused. If there is a brilliant fraud and investigation team and the Minister is genuinely concerned, why did it take a BBC investigation to draw it to our attention?

Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, it was as a result of ongoing communication with our industry stakeholders that we discovered that it was important to re-lay the regulations. In a sense, there was not a formal consultation, but we do have ongoing and constant communication with industry stakeholders who will be affected by these minor and technical amendments when we leave the European Union. I stress that we were very concerned to correct a fault in terminology, which is why we withdrew the original draft.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

The Minister read from paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum for my noble friend Lord Adonis. That paragraph does confirm what she has just read out: that,

“the Department did engage with and respond to industry concerns over one aspect of the draft regulations that created an unintended consequence”.

How can she know, without carrying out a full consultation, that other aspects would not create unintended consequences?

[Baroness Buscombe]

The noble Lord, with all his experience, will know that all legislation, however much it is consulted upon, runs the risk of unintended consequences. However, in this case, there was ongoing communication and involvement with industry, and it was industry that pointed out the risk we were taking by laying the regulations with the wrong terminology—the words “UK regulated market”. We redrafted regulations that were originally laid in draft on 24 October so that we could fix an unintended consequence that industry stakeholders highlighted for us. They were concerned that the use of the term “UK regulated market” in the original draft regulations could have resulted in occupational pension schemes having to disinvest from regulated markets outside the UK. So there was a concern that this could impact further than was intended. The redrafted regulations re-laid on 3 December addressed the issue by clarifying the definition of “regulated market” to include United Kingdom, European Economic Area and other regulated markets. Industry stakeholders have welcomed the change.

The Explanatory Memorandum that supports these regulations sets out the legislation in Great Britain that is being changed. Noble Lords will see there a list of all the Acts where changes are required to be made. Primarily, the regulations make changes to reflect the UK’s new status as a state independent of the EU in the event of no deal and to ensure that domestic legislation continues to operate effectively following the UK’s exit from the Union. Consequently, they deal with the authorisation of cross-border pension schemes—that is what they are really about.

The EU’s cross-border authorisation regime applies to cross-border activity between member states and requires pension schemes to seek authorisation from their regulator to undertake such activity. Broadly speaking, cross-border activity is when an employer in one member state selects to base its occupational pension scheme in another.

These regulations recognise that once the UK ceases to be a member state following its exit from the Union, it will no longer be subject to the rules of the regime for any cross-border activity. Consequently, the regulations remove the requirement for UK occupational pension schemes to obtain authorisation from the Pensions Regulator to carry out cross-border activities.

As I have said, but I will repeat it for all noble Lords to make sure that I have got the message across, these regulations were originally laid on 24 October and were intended to make changes to domestic legislation. It was at that point that industry stakeholders in conversation with our department identified an unintended consequence of the draft regulations relating to its use of “UK regulated market” as a definition of regulated markets rather than “other regulated markets”. Industry stakeholders were concerned that this could have resulted in occupational pension schemes having to disinvest from regulated markets outside the UK.

As this was not the original policy intent, and following engagement with industry stakeholders, we redrafted the regulations to correct this unintended consequence. The draft regulations that were re-laid on 3 December addressed this issue by extending the definition of “regulated market” to include UK, EEA and other regulated markets. A corresponding change has been made to the Northern Ireland regulations, which I will speak to shortly.

These instruments are part of a wider legislation package that my department is laying. We have already laid statutory instruments relating to social security and to the European job mobility portal, more commonly known as the EURES regime.

As I have said to noble Lords, a formal consultation on these regulations was not carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions. It was not considered to be necessary because the regulations do not make any policy changes and make only minor and technical amendments designed to ensure that UK legislation operates effectively on the day the UK leaves the EU.

Similarly, we expect the regulations to have no significant impact on business, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector. In fact, in their absence, if elements of the UK’s occupational and personal pensions legislation do not work effectively after the UK departs the EU, it will result in associated costs on all involved parties; for example, extra resource invested in trying to clarify the situation. These instruments make the changes needed to avoid this situation and, on this basis, are assessed to be at least cost-neutral or beneficial on balance to all involved parties, charities and voluntary bodies. In other words, we felt it was very important to make sure that the legislation was clear prior to leaving the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, we are constantly in touch with the Pensions Regulator, with which we have a very good relationship. We work very closely with industry. My honourable friend in another place, the Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion, also has ongoing discussions with the Pensions Regulator and individual companies within the pensions industry. The noble Lord will recall that I have stated that there was no formal consultation because there was no change to policy. Given that there is no change to policy and that we are dealing with minor and technical amendments, and given our constant and ongoing involvement with the industry—those in the industry are very much in touch with each other; it is not an industry that is hard to be in touch with—and this niche area of cross-border activity of pension companies and pensions, it is fair to say that the department has done all that is reasonably necessary and, indeed, cost-effective to limit our consultation to an informal ongoing communication with both the Pensions Regulator and industry stakeholders.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

On this constant and ongoing activity with the industry, I wonder whether the Minister can help me. The territorial extent of this provision is the United Kingdom. What is the position if my pension is based in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, or if my employer has a base in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man? How is that covered?

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, we are talking about occupational pensions and private pension schemes. If the noble Lord has a pension in that area, it would be important for him to make sure that he is in touch with his pension provider, to make sure that payment will continue. However, these regulations have nothing to do with payment of pensions.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am not asking that. I should make it clear that I do not have a pension based in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. At least, if I do, then Brian Donohoe is going to be in trouble, because he is in charge of parliamentary pensions, which is all I have. I asked the question as a Member of this House, scrutinising this on behalf of people outside who may have pensions based in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I have read through the whole document and there is nothing related to either. What discussions have taken place? As the Minister knows, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have large financial sectors. They are providers of pensions and investments that are the basis for other pension funds that may be based in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the European Union. How are the funds in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man affected by the proposed changes? It is not clear in any part of the document and I hope the Minister can tell the House.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, if I am unable to give the noble Lord a full reply, or after this debate my officials tell me that there is something else to say about the Channel Islands, I will certainly write to him and share my letter with all noble Lords. We are not moving away from current legislation. We are just introducing minor technical amendments to make sure that current UK legislation carries on working seamlessly in the event of no deal. There is nothing in UK private occupational pensions legislation that prevents occupational pension schemes making pension payments overseas. We do not expect this to change as a result of the UK withdrawing from the EU. We also do not expect there to be any issues with EEA schemes making occupational pension payments to residents in the UK. However, as I have said, individuals should contact their EEA scheme to clarify whether they expect any changes as a result of the UK leaving the EU.

These regulations are not about pay, but if a pension is paid into a UK bank account the bank should contact the scheme member if it expects any changes as a result of the UK leaving the EU. In the same way, those points would extend to any arrangements that an individual had with pension providers in the Channel Islands and elsewhere.

I would like to progress and complete my opening statement. We expect these regulations to have no significant impact on business, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector. These instruments make the changes needed to avoid a situation that could be other than cost-neutral or beneficial. All noble Lords will know that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is a crucial piece of legislation that will ensure that, whatever the outcome of negotiations, we have a functioning statute book on exit day, providing certainty to people and businesses across the UK. The Act enables this by providing a power for Ministers in the UK Government and devolved Administrations to deal with deficiencies in the law arising as a result of our exit from the EU. I beg to move.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

The Question is that the two Motions in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I thought she had moved only one Motion.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

If the noble Lord wishes to object, he can come in when the Speaker calls the voices.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Lord is a long-standing friend but my understanding is that things have changed. It was originally planned that the two would be taken together but the Minister has moved only one. This was before the noble Lord was in the Chair.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

To save any problems, the Minister’s Motion to move these Motions en bloc has been objected to, so the Minister should now move the first Motion on its own.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that extended explanation. It was quite clear, but perhaps it is easier for me to say that because I am a serving member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has been looking very carefully on the House’s behalf at all of these points. These regulations were cleared, and the SLSC does not clear regulations that are not properly looked at. All of the important questions were addressed. While I would encourage your Lordships to ask more questions about some regulations—because there are occasions when regulations are laid before Parliament that deserve a lot more scrutiny than they normally get—this is not one of them. This regulation is technical and I take the point that has been made about the lack of consultation. That is always something that the committee is very solicitous to understand and the explanation that we got, which was crystal clear to me, was that the objection that came in and was found by bilateral consultations with the industry was so technical that you would not expect a member of the public to be able to volunteer something of that kind.

There are two kinds of consultation, and we are always looking for consultations where there is any case for making them. In regard to this regulation, this was not a sensible judgment to make, so the department was right both to take the advice from industry and to make the change. It is standard that regulations, in the gestation between Parliament and the department, often get relaid. Often the Explanatory Memoranda are changed and that is all to the good.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My noble friend—I have known him for many years—is an expert on social security and a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The two committees under the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and my noble friend Lord Cunningham do a terrific job. However, is it not perfectly possible, because of the huge avalanche of legislation—the statutory instruments now coming to these committees—for things to be overlooked? Therefore, it is absolutely right that the Grand Committee and the House, where there is a wider membership and people might have looked at the regulations in some detail, might raise some of the issues. I fear that a lot of things will get through and these unintended consequences—few and far between as they have been in the past—will just become an avalanche themselves.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My noble friend makes a good point. I certainly have serious concerns about the scale, complexity and volume—not just the number, but the extent—of some of these SIs that the two committees upstairs are struggling to deal with. One thing that we are very solicitous of—and it supports the point—is that it is very easy to reduce the standards of scrutiny, which is one thing that we must not do. I gently say to the noble Lord, however, that if parliamentary procedures are tested to the extent that it takes up more time than this normally would, there are emergency procedures available to Governments which they might resort to if you push them too hard on the Floor on the time necessary to discuss these things. Therefore, I am absolutely happy to spend time when time is due to be spent, but these regulations are not of sufficient weight or concern to justify spending a lot of time, or more time than is necessary, on them.

The point about consultation has been made. The important thing is that we need to be more agile and more flexible about how we handle these statutory instruments. But I support the regulations and I hope the Government will take on board the important points that have been made about when consultations are and are not needed.

Benefit Reforms

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I welcome this question from the right reverend Prelate. First, I want to say that we now spend more in this country than any other developed nation on family benefits.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

That does not answer the question.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I said I would begin by saying that we now spend more in this country than any other developed nation on family benefits. The aim of the two-child policy is an important one: to strike the appropriate balance between support for claimants with children, and fairness to taxpayers and families who support themselves solely through work. Parents who support themselves solely through work would not expect to see their wages increase simply because of the addition of a new child to their family. However, we are looking at the policy with regard to its extension, which is due to take place next month.

Kinship Carers: Two-child Limit Policy

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank my noble and learned friend for his question.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

Reconsider it.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I have to say that we have already said that we have responded with enormous sympathy to this. The policy is currently under review, but it should also be made clear that the Government have assessed the impact of the policy from an equality and human rights perspective throughout its development and in its implementation, thus meeting our obligations under the public sector equality duty and ensuring compliance with human rights and other international obligations.