New Clause 28
Pensions Bill
2:15 pm
Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)
I was going to come to that. No, she was not in receipt of that. I cannot recall all the details of her exact circumstances, but the two things that really grated with her were, first, that she had lost her carer’s allowance and, secondly, that she had gone through her life with a very severe disability that she had, quite remarkably, managed to hide. When she was driving the car, her feet could not reach the pedals properly; she needed a properly adapted mobility vehicle, so how she managed to drive everybody around to all the appointments, goodness knows. However, purely because of her age, it was impossible to start to resolve any of the difficulties. The problem was not just her income, but the well-being of a number of people who were dependent on her and who were affected by what happened. She was one of the people who found herself most aggrieved about the retirement age cut-off point for certain benefits.
Quite a lot of the debates throughout this Committee stage have been about people’s changing lives and circumstances, particularly those of women, and the way in which the pension system should adapt to become fit for purpose and to meet people’s needs in those changing circumstances. Among the arguments that have been made is, first, that there should be equity and that women’s role in the workplace and as carers should be recognised much more substantially, and secondly, that people should go on working for longer and should not regard retirement as some sort of cliff edge that they go off and spend the rest of their lives as semi-citizens.
I welcome that, and certainly my constituents have always had the most remarkable work ethic. Both men and women have worked and have done so post-retirement, so it seems particularly unfair that we are saying to people that they should not regard retirement age or state pension age as the end of their lives and they should carry on working and participating—we even have a new deal for older workers—but we then say, “By the way, you are not going to get carer’s allowance, and if you suddenly become disabled, and your mobility decreases, you are not going to be able to get help there.” That seems to be an absolutely basic inconsistency.
My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that, in response to my amendment that proposed spending an extra £14 billion, he said that the research had shown that people wanted the biggest increase in income directly after retirement. That surprised me, because I thought that people wanted more money when they were older, but that is what he said the research showed. Having a cut-off point for carer’s allowance and disability benefits therefore seems to be particularly counter-productive. On the mobility components, people now have the positive expectation that they will be mobile when older. They do not expect to reach retirement, put their feet up and never drive a car again.
The rule about the overlapping benefits runs counter to that. I understand that, of course, people can get the carer’s component of pension credit—some 200,000 people do already. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend would say whether there is any information on under-claiming because, until this Committee, I did not know about the disability or carer’s components. I have done a huge amount of take-up work in my constituency in order to encourage people to claim, and if there is under-claiming, we need to ensure that people know about those components.
Not everybody gets pension credit and some only get the savings element. I am not sure whether the carer’s component can go to those who only get the savings credit. However, quite often, although a husband might be disabled or ill when older, he could still have a good income from a work pension. It by no means follows that the carer, or couple, will always be entitled to the carer’s component of pension credit. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would respond to that point. In particular, will he explain the rationale for the cliff edge that means that when someone retires, although they might be expected or encouraged to continue to work, they will not continue to benefit from support to replace lost earnings?