Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

Monday Volume 523 14 February 2011 No. 118 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday 14 February 2011 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 681 14 FEBRUARY 2011 682 that situation—will be eligible to apply for jobseeker’s House of Commons allowance or employment and support allowance, so they will not be left destitute. Monday 14 February 2011 Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): The Turner commission recommended a 15-year lead-in for The House met at half-past Two o’clock such changes. Those women who were born in 1954 will not benefit from that. Does the Minister think that fair? PRAYERS Steve Webb: The hon. Lady raises the important point that notice periods are important. The challenge [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] we faced was that the time scale for raising state pension ages that we inherited was staggeringly leisurely. The Conservative party manifesto and the coalition agreement made it clear that we would move faster. The state Oral Answers to Questions pension age for men was set at 65 a century ago—I think we need to move faster. Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con): WORK AND PENSIONS A constituent of mine who has worked all her life and has saved for her own pension falls into the vintage year The Secretary of State was asked— of 1954. She cannot bring herself to be on jobseeker’s allowance at the end of a hard-working career. It seems State Pension Age (Women) a little harsh to suggest that as the only outcome. Steve Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Jobseeker’s 1. Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East allowance and employment and support allowance are Cleveland) (Lab): What assessment he has made of available as safety nets, but I appreciate that that is not the likely effects of the proposed change in the state what many people will want. The vast majority of the pension age for women. [39800] women in this birth cohort are still working. In the world that we are going into, we anticipate that more The Minister of State, Department for Work and people will work into their 60s—that is part of the Pensions (Steve Webb): We published a full equality change. Many of them will be able to support themselves, impact assessment as part of the White Paper on our perhaps through a part-time job, to cover the gap in proposals to bring forward the increase of the state years. pension age to 66, which sets out the effect on women of those changes. Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab): The Minister’s response is inadequate. The Government’s coalition Tom Blenkinsop: The coalition agreement states that agreement is clear. Under the Government’s plans, the the parties agree to state pension age will start to rise to 66 in 2018, not in 2020 as promised in the coalition agreement. Some “hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 33,000 women, currently aged 56, will have to wait 2020 for women.” exactly two years longer to get their pension, with little time to prepare. The average retirement savings of those Will the Minister explain why he saw fit to U-turn on women will provide them with just £11 a week in that promise and to start to increase the women’s state retirement. They simply do not have the savings to draw pension age to 66 from 2018? on to accommodate these moving goalposts. Does the Minister honestly believe that these changes for women Steve Webb: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the process are fair and proportionate? of raising the state pension age to 66, he will find that early in 2020, the age will still be 65 and some months. It Steve Webb: I have common ground with the hon. will not start to rise to 66 until April of that year. Lady on two points. First, I deplore the fact that the pensions policies of the previous Government have left Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): Although I women in this group with so little pensions savings to welcome the equalisation of the pension ages, does the draw on. Secondly, she is right that we could go more Minister agree that a small group of women born, like slowly. We could, as she has proposed, delay until 2020 me, in the middle months of 1954—a vintage year—will before doing anything, but we would then have to find be affected disproportionately by the way in which it is an additional £10 billion that the present schedule being phased in? Will he look again to see what can be provides for us. I have not yet had the letter or parliamentary done to help that group of women? question from her suggesting where that £10 billion might come from. Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right that of the 2.6 million women who are affected, 33,000 were born Work Capability Assessment in the vintage months that he describes. That group will have to delay for up to two years before they receive 2. Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): What discussions he their state pension. One reassurance I can offer is that has had on changes to the work capability assessment those women—and indeed he, should he find himself in for those with variable conditions. [39801] 683 Oral Answers14 FEBRUARY 2011 Oral Answers 684 The Minister of State, Department for Work and 6. Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): What Pensions (Chris Grayling): We are, as the House knows, assessment he has made of the likely effect of the committed to improving the work capability assessment introduction of universal credit on the level of the couple so that it is as fair and accurate as possible, including penalty. [39808] for people with variable conditions. It currently provides for variable conditions, but we are implementing all the The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain recommendations of Professor Malcolm Harrington’s Duncan Smith): The couple penalty is often slightly independent review. I have asked Professor Harrington to misunderstood. It is normally created when a higher take forward the next review, which will include a detailed benefit rate for single people means that couples are look at how the assessment deals with fluctuating conditions, materially disadvantaged by living together. It is generally to see whether we can make further improvements. recognised internationally that a saving is made when two people live together, and the figure given by the Mark Pawsey: The Minister will be aware of the OECD and others is about 75% at most. In the UK, concerns of people who have conditions such as chronic under the benefit system left by the last Government, fatigue syndrome, who have good days and bad days. workless couples received only 60% of the benefits They are anxious to ensure that they receive fair treatment received by two single workless people, which I believe through the work capability assessment, taking account put us in the bottom four OECD countries. Simultaneously, of their ability to complete activities on a regular basis. the proportion of people forming couples is at its lowest Can the Minister provide an assurance that the variable at all income levels, about 15% down against other nature of such conditions will be fully considered, and countries. The Institute for Fiscal Studies recognises that the assessment will identify the appropriate level of that the universal credit will start to make inroads into support for individuals to enable those who can to get that problem. back into work? Bob Blackman: I thank my right hon. Friend. Does Chris Grayling: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend he agree that it cannot be correct that two people who that assurance. Indeed, I have asked Professor Harrington choose to live together as a couple should be penalised to work with people who specialise in ME as part of his by £30 a week in benefits? Surely it is better for people review. I do not want us to write off everybody with a to stay together as a family and be able to care for their particular condition. It is important to identify who can family together. potentially work and who cannot, and to provide them with the appropriate support. That is the goal of our Mr Duncan Smith: From the figures that I have just policy and what we will seek to do, and I am mindful of given and those that we have looked at, there is no the concerns that my hon. Friend raises. question but that the disparity between where the last Government left us and where it is generally accepted Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): The sharp increase that couples should be is the real cause of the problem in job losses forecast this morning by the Chartered that is making people live apart, particularly those on Institute of Personnel and Development will make it lower incomes. I draw attention to the right hon. Member harder still for people with health conditions to find for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and his interesting “Panorama” jobs. Last week, the Minister tabled regulations that programme.

Load more