Clause 1 - ''Qualifying individual'' and ''relevant week''
Age-Related Payments Bill
9:45 am
Mr Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Eastbourne, Conservative)
People who know what we are talking about, but who possibly do not know what real people are talking about.
The payment is a throwback to the cold weather payment. It is not immediately clear to Conservative Members—or to Liberal Democrats, as is apparent from their earlier amendments—why there should be a relevant week at all. The intention of my lamented amendment No. 9 was to ensure that if someone is 70 at some point during the relevant year up to the end of March 2005 they would qualify for the payment. That comes at the problem from a different direction. There is still a perceived unfairness as to why 69-year-olds do not qualify, but we have dealt with that. However, it would be fairer to say that if someone qualifies at any point within the given year, they should be able to claim the payment if it is going to be made.
On subsection (2), why do we have the relevant week at all, and why do we have it on these particular dates in September? Is that to do with the mechanics of how it is to be paid, or is there a special significance—a particular magic—to that week in September? We will come on to other qualifications, such as someone being in hospital and whether they have other people living with them, but I want to know the point of subsection (2) in its entirety. Does it add anything to what the Government are proposing? Would it not be fairer to make the proposal much broader? If they are going to stick to the 70 years position, why not just make it apply to anyone who is 70 at some point during the relevant financial year?