Support for Pensioners

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital.

My constituency is home to 18,164 people aged 65 and over. Whether under the Conservatives or Labour, Britain’s pensioners have been a political football for successive Governments to mistreat, kick around and turn their back on. That has been the case from the winter fuel allowance under this Government to the betrayal on the triple lock by the previous Government and the failure to compensate WASPI women by both the Conservatives and Labour.

Pensioners are some of the most vulnerable in our society. They have worked hard all their lives, and they should have an opportunity for some much-deserved rest and relaxation. Instead, they are forced to stress about finances and to make impossible decisions that threaten their health. I am sure every MP of every political party will have received casework or correspondence about older people being forced to choose between heating and eating. Fuel poverty is a blight on our nation and a sign that our welfare state is failing—and it will get worse. The energy price cap is forecast to rise for the third consecutive period in April 2025, and the average energy bill is already 57% higher than it was in 2021.

The Chancellor’s cuts to winter fuel payments have only exacerbated the problem that poor pensioners face. The Government are attempting to clear up the horrific mess the Conservatives left the economy in, and they have picked up the pieces—but they have dropped them all over again. In October 2024, a YouGov poll commissioned by Independent Age found that 43% of older people who had lost their winter fuel payments would go to bed earlier to avoid having to heat their homes, while 23% said they would not turn on their heating at all. That poses a clear and direct threat to their health, with Independent Age estimating that it would cost roughly £4 billion in increased NHS and social care costs. Locally, that could fund two new Royal Berkshire hospitals.

One of my constituents, Philippa, came all the way to Parliament to talk to me about the impact of the cuts. Many of the people with her remarked how few Labour MPs took an interest in meeting pensioners from their constituencies face to face to hear about the effects of the policies they ended up supporting—I will let the evidence speak for itself. Philippa is not the only one who made contact. Mark, Pauline, Maxine and many others all wrote to tell me how worried they were. The Government have made the wrong decision in trying to cut spending, and they should have taxed the banks, social media giants and online gambling companies instead.

Liberal Democrat Wokingham borough council has done a great job trying to make the best of a difficult situation. It has encouraged eligible pensioners to sign up for pension credit before Christmas, including by sending 1,000 letters to people identified as potentially eligible. That exercise revealed that, although the DWP knows which individuals are eligible for pension credit, it does not release that information to councils. Having that information would have supported the great effort by Wokingham borough council, so will the Minister commit to changing that policy, to allow councils to inform those eligible for pension credit more effectively? If I am wrong on that, the Minister can write and tell me, but I do not think I am.

What steps are the Government taking to support people with their energy bills who are above the threshold for pension credit and other means-tested benefits? Will the Minister commit to launching an emergency home energy upgrade programme to provide free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households?

When many pensioners were already suffering through the loss of the winter fuel allowance, the Government decided to turn their back on hundreds of thousands of WASPI women. It was a shameful decision to betray millions of pension-age women, who were wronged through no fault of their own, and to ignore the independent ombudsman’s recommendation. The ombudsman concluded that just 43% of people knew that the planned change to the state pension age would affect them personally. The Liberal Democrats pushed the Government for years to compensate WASPI women fairly. That tone-deaf decision cannot be allowed to stand. Will the Minister state precisely why he does not believe that WASPI women are owed compensation? Will he do the right thing and agree to a parliamentary vote on this issue?

On a related matter, my constituent Alan sadly lost his wife recently. She was one of the many women affected by the increase in pension age. To add to that injustice, there was a change in 2016, and Alan has been told that he is no longer entitled to any form of widower’s state pension. Therefore, he is losing money that his wife received, even though his normal living expenses are pretty much the same. I wrote to the Minister some months ago, and I still look forward to a response. I hope he will be able to dig further into this matter and send me a reply soon.

Finally, let us not forget that the Conservatives have failed pensioners, both when they were in government and, more recently, outside of government. The Leader of the Opposition has many low moments to point to from her first 100 days, and the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) must rub his hands together excitedly after Prime Minister’s questions most weeks. For me, however, the most obvious low moment was when the Leader of the Opposition decided to go after the triple lock on pensions. One moment, when it is politically convenient, the Conservatives are all for means-testing benefits, but suddenly, when they are starved of new ideas, they are against it. The Conservative leader promised not to have too many policies, yet one of her first was to advocate slashing the state pension.

The Liberal Democrats are proud that we introduced the triple lock for pensions, and we will fight tooth and nail against any attempt by the Conservatives to weaken it, or if the Minister and the Labour Government decide to do what the Tories did in 2022 and temporarily suspend it. Will the Minister commit today to never make that mistake?

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. It is the second on this topic today, but it puts a particular focus on the support that the Government should be providing.

I also thank hon. Members for the many contributions that we have had, and I will briefly touch on a couple that raised points that I was not planning to raise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) highlighted the lack of notice that pensioners had about the change to the winter fuel payment. That highlights the fact that nobody could be expected to do any planning, as well as the lack of a wider impact assessment of what this change would actually mean for real people’s lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is no longer in his place, but he talked about the council tax increase that many pensioners will also face in the coming months. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) highlighted the knock-on impacts of the change to winter fuel payment on our health and social care systems. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) talked about the impact on 44,000 terminally ill patients.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the lack of heating in damp homes. It is interesting to note the cross-reference to the Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill, where there was a huge emphasis on tackling mould. Yet what we have here is the knock-on impact of the challenges faced by pensioners, which may instead lead to an increase in mould in their homes.

Finally, I will just highlight the rather humorous point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who I think will go down in history for coining the phrase, “Strapping of Strangford”, which could well be the highlight of this whole debate, alongside the lots of equally great points that he made about his constituency. Sorry— I digress.

What has really been highlighted this afternoon is Labour’s broken promises, particularly to pensioners. They fought the election claiming that they were on the side of pensioners, but this entire debate has highlighted that that may not be the case. Actually, I should also refer to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who made a whole load of claims about the Conservative party and who seemed to forget the successes that I am about to highlight. I also wholeheartedly refute his claims about what has been happening since the election.

[Clive Jones]

I am not the MP for Swansea West; I am the MP for Wokingham.

[Rebecca Smith]

Sorry, I meant to say Wokingham. I had circled “Swansea West” in my notes; I was trying to be clever—forgive me. Anyway, I will go back to my notes; that would be much better.

In the same way that the Government are coming after farmers, with the family farm tax, they have also gone after pensioners right across the country—and all of that on the back Labour wiping £118 billion off the value of people’s pensions the last time it was in government. So, many of these pensioners have already seen their pensions being devalued.

At the same time, the Government are finding the money to launch the vanity project GB Energy—if we are lucky, we will see lower energy bills by 2030—and pouring money into public pay packets, with no expectation of improving productivity. Pensioners and farmers seem to be the easy targets, and some Labour members seem to believe that that is the case—or perhaps I should say former members, given that they are perhaps less likely to vote Labour.

Labour has come to power against the backdrop of a Conservative record of improving dignity in people’s retirement. We protected the triple lock; uprated the state pension by £3,700; drove up pension credit applications earlier in our time in office; and abolished the pension lifetime tax allowance, which we need some credit for, because it incentivised more experienced workers, including GPs, to stay in work for longer. The Resolution Foundation, which the Minister previously worked for, has confirmed that pensioners are £1,000 better off since 2010, thanks to the decisions made by successive Conservative Governments.

As other Members have said, among the more disappointing policy decisions the Government have made since they came into office is the decision to scrap winter fuel allowance for pensioners who are not in receipt of pension credit—that is the key point. The decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance has seen 10 million pensioners lose access to payments they were previously eligible for. I note the excellent research published by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), which shows that my constituency of South West Devon is likely to be among the hardest hit. Previously just over 22,000 people received winter fuel allowance, but now only about 1,600 would be eligible through pension credit. Some 21,301 pensioners in my constituency would lose out.

Many of us have had representations from constituents, and I want to particularly highlight single pensioners, who are the hardest hit in many cases. We have heard that some earning as little as £11,344—less than £1,000 a month—are no longer eligible for winter fuel payments. There is also an undue hit on the disabled and those whose modest savings lift them out of the bracket. That is completely immoral.

Children and Young People with Cancer

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of welfare for children and young people with cancer.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck, and to discuss an issue that is important to me. As a society we are aware of the cost that cancer has on our lives: it deprives us of a future with our loved ones; it leaves us tormented with constant hospital visits; it forces an anxiety on us about what will happen next; and it causes us relentless emotional, physical and mental pain. It is a pain that does not go away, even when the cancer does.

I regret, however, that society fails to understand the literal costs of having cancer not just to us as individuals but to children, young people and their families. Lest we forget the cruel reality of cancer for young patients, which is often different from that of adults, the cancers that they experience are often faster-growing, less common, have unique emotional and mental health impacts, and have significant long-term treatment effects. The support that they require is therefore quite distinct, and has specific financial implications that make it especially hard.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for all his efforts on cancer issues in the short time that he has been in this place. He has been assiduous, focused and very much to the fore on the issue, and we thank him for that. In relation to the welfare of children and young people with cancer, is he aware that 71% of families impacted by cancer in young people are struggling to meet travel costs? That is the case in Northern Ireland, but I understand that it is also the case on the mainland. With one in 10 people missing appointments because they have not got the finances to go to them—and the impact that has on the NHS—does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time for Government to step up and ensure that the finance to travel for young people with cancer is made available?

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that there are huge costs, especially for children when they have to face cancer, and for the parents of children, because they have to take time off work to look after the children. There is not always the necessary support. Research from Young Lives vs Cancer highlights that on average, a cancer diagnosis for children and young people delivers £700 of additional costs every month for a patient and their family. Those additional costs come alongside significantly falling household income, with an average drop of over £6,000 a year; for at least one in three, that drop is over £10,000 a year.

Cancer does not have the decency to allow people to consider the implications of what happens next, but instead forces people to immediately start spending more. For example, it adds £250 extra a month on travel to hospital, £144 extra on food, often due to specialist requirements and extra hygiene caution, and £68 extra on energy to ensure that the home is always warm and clean, due to young cancer patients being immunocompromised. Those examples and many more all take place from day one.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this matter to the House today. Many people will know my own personal story, and that my husband has cancer. One thing we have found on this journey is the number of young people who are currently in hospital beds across Northern Ireland and every other part of the UK. Many of those children, whenever they undergo treatment, will become neutropenic, which involves, as the hon. Member just mentioned, the issue of hygiene, cleanliness, food and everything else. There are numerous charities across Northern Ireland such as Powered by Poppy, inspired by Poppy Ogle who sadly passed away from cancer, and there is Adam’s Army, which operates close to my constituency in Lagan Valley. Families go out of their way to provide services because the state will not step up, and that situation cannot continue. Does the hon. Member agree that cancer is the worst thing that can ever come across a family’s door? Yet whenever the state does not step in, it makes an awful situation a million times worse.

[Clive Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right: cancer is the worst thing that can ever cross a family’s doorstep. It affects every family, every person, very differently. Financially we need something called Hugh’s law, which I will talk about later. That could give a family £700 every month from diagnosis. At the moment people have to wait at least three months, then fill in the forms and wait another three or four months. But Hugh’s law, for not an awful lot of money, could change all that very quickly. I will come on to that.

I hope I have made it clear that the costs are overwhelming; and yet the existing support from the Government is woefully lacking. I would go as far as to say it is downright cruel. Disability benefits are vital for children and young people with cancer because of the costs associated with diagnosis. They come in the form of personal independence payments, disability living allowance and, subsequently, carer’s allowance. Despite those benefits’ being so crucial and the effects of cancer being so immediate, children and young people face a three-month qualifying period before they can claim PIP or DLA. I would just like to repeat that: children and young people are subject to a three-month qualifying period, which for most is from the point of diagnosis, before they can access support.

The very purpose of welfare or social security is to deliver support for the most vulnerable. Young cancer patients go through some of the toughest, unimaginable pain—pain that even I, as a cancer survivor, could not contemplate. They do it with perseverance, with diligence, and somehow they do it with hope.

Tragically, some families lose their child to cancer. To be told at the start of that journey through hell that patients and families need to wait three months before applying for vitally needed funds is simply inexplicable. The evidence shows that the costs are immediate, and yet patients and families are deprived of support that they urgently need from day one. Can the Minister please clarify why it is necessary to have a three-month qualifying period? Can he explicitly put it on the record whether he thinks that that is appropriate in the case of children and young people with cancer? Alternatively, could he please publish the advice from civil servants that are insisting on the three-month qualifying period?

The argument has to be made that the impact of a condition needs to be evidenced for three months before DLA or PIP can be provided to avoid benefit fraud, but it is very clearly established that children and young people with cancer will be significantly impacted by their cancer from the start, even before it is diagnosed. Surely a confirmed medical diagnosis is enough. The Minister may claim that someone with cancer might have been impacted by the condition before their diagnosis was given and therefore their qualifying period will have begun prior to diagnosis. However, experts make it clear that until the diagnosis is given, it is almost impossible for children and young people to know that they have a serious condition that qualifies them for benefits and to evidence the impact. The diagnosis is key. That is simply the reality.

In the experience of charities that I have talked to, children and young people who apply for disability benefits are nearly always successful. Very, very few are rejected at the point of initial application or subsequent appeal. However, I recognise that it may be concluded that that is anecdotal. Therefore it would be incredibly helpful if the Minister could confirm that the majority of children and young people with cancer are successful in their applications for PIP and DLA and that very few, if any, are rejected for benefits. If he could provide the precise statistics, I would be very grateful.

Research also shows that once the three-month qualifying period has concluded, there are significant delays in applications’ being processed after they are submitted. This period currently sits at up to 20 weeks. The qualifying period and these additional delays are leaving children and young people without benefits support for several months. For the application processing, the benefits can be backdated, but only to the point of application rather than diagnosis. That leaves people missing out on benefits support for the first three months of their illness. Based on data from Young Lives vs Cancer, it concludes that children and young people with cancer and their families will have incurred additional costs of on average £2,100 before they can even apply for any benefit.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to speak and for securing this important debate. That issue of up-front costs and the costs to some of these children and their families has been underpinned by research by the organisations that he has mentioned. Just 12% of families say that their costs are covered by the current scheme. As children’s cancer therapy gets more specialised, with those families often being forced to travel further and further, there is a big concern about that. It is happening in my constituency, where some families are forced to miss appointments or delay the start of treatment because they cannot afford the costs. Those delayed and missed appointments are actually costing the NHS a lot of money at the moment. While we try to establish new arrangements for travel funding, there are opportunities for savings, by stopping those missed appointments, that could be put back into the pockets of those young children.

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: we could save the NHS a lot of money, because a lot of appointments will be cancelled because people are getting used to the fact that their child has cancer, and that they have to make alternative arrangements in order to take them to the hospital where they will be treated. If they were able to get a payment straightaway, that would save the NHS money in the long term. The money that it might cost to make those payments could be recouped further down the line, so the hon. Member is absolutely right.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. He mentioned the impact of investing early and of people being able to qualify for payments from day one. Does he agree with me and with Teach Cancer a Lesson, a charity set up by one of my Hazel Grove constituents in Mellor, about the impact of ensuring that education continues when children have a cancer diagnosis? Teach Cancer a Lesson talks about making sure that local authorities have a responsibility to review the education provision for a child on day one, or within 28 days of a cancer diagnosis. Does my hon. Friend agree that the same principle applies—that it costs far less in the long term, in educational terms, if that review is done early, rather than waiting and waiting and allowing a child’s education to suffer?

[Clive Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a child can try to have a normal life, which includes still going to school, seeing their friends and being educated, that will help them and their family to cope with their treatment. Schools and local authorities should work hard to ensure a normal life for that child very quickly.

One family supported by Young Lives vs Cancer received their first DLA payment only in January, after their child was diagnosed in July. In another case, a delay of four months from the start of a DLA application meant that a young cancer patient’s mother was left with no financial support, because her statutory sick pay ended before the DLA started. How the Government expect people to manage with those extra costs is beyond me.

This is the very worst form of bureaucratic inflexibility, and it leads to some people not applying for benefits because they see a system stacked against them, quite apart from the burden of applying during the most disruptive time of their lives. People are not going to prioritise form filling when they or their child needs radiotherapy. The process takes so long that sometimes children and young people have either finished their treatment or, most concerningly, passed away before the benefits have been awarded. A child being treated in Leicester sadly died before a DLA decision was made, leaving their family to go through the challenging conversation of wanting the claim form still to be reviewed because the family were owed a back payment. That is unacceptable.

The Minister responded to a parliamentary question by arguing that those nearing the end of life can apply for special rules. However, this simply does not work very well, because situations can change quickly and some who are not terminally ill can rapidly deteriorate. Some may still receive potentially curative treatment even if the risk of death is high, or some may wish not to know their prognosis. The Minister needs to urgently assess the benefits of changing to a medical evidence-based eligibility for these patients.

There is a precedent for medical evidence being used to expedite access to benefits. The existing special rules process for those with terminal illness definitions means that they do not need to meet the three-month qualifying period with medical evidence. That principle should be applied to all children and young people with cancer, to facilitate immediate access to benefits.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Royal Marsden, which is a world-class facility for treating cancer patients, is in my borough of Sutton. One of the things that struck me when I went there was how much energy goes into trying to make the whole experience for the family and the child going through cancer as comfortable as possible. It was not just about the clinical treatment that that child received, but about having play spaces and comfort areas, and doing everything possible to make that really tough experience a manageable one. Does my hon. Friend agree that the state should seek to do the same, by reducing bureaucratic hurdles, such as those he described, to ensure that that terrible time for the family goes as comfortably as possible?

[Clive Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should be doing everything, especially in the first few weeks, days and months of a diagnosis, to make it as comfortable for a child as possible. Adults who get cancer have a circle of friends around them and can cope with it. I have no idea what it is like for a child, but I can imagine that it is very difficult, so having a play area and things they are familiar with using must make that experience much easier.

I want to ask the Minister if, as per the principles of the existing special rules process, he will consider using medical diagnosis to allow children and young people with cancer to apply for benefits as soon as their diagnosis is confirmed. Does he also recognise that the special rules process in its current form is flawed? One young person treated in London was awarded DLA only a few weeks before they sadly died, despite using the special rules process, which should have expedited their benefits. The stress placed on their family was significant.

I pay tribute to the campaign of Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis to establish Hugh’s law, in the name of their six-year-old son, who tragically died from a rare form of cancer. Their story is heartbreaking, but is unfortunately a common reality for parents who are forced into darkness. At one of the lowest moments in their life, with the Government looking away from them, support is a struggle to access, rather than a guarantee. I personally endorse the objectives of Hugh’s law: for financial aid to be granted to the parents of chronically sick children from day one and for the removal of the three-month qualifying period, which Young Lives vs Cancer has also called for. Its research is right that, for a very small cost, the Government could transform the lives of thousands by delivering parents a limited-time, non-means-tested benefit to cope as their lives completely change.

I met Ceri on Monday to discuss her campaign, and I attended the Hugh’s law event today on the Terrace pavilion. Hearing directly about people’s lived experience and from experts at that event reinforced why we urgently need change. Does the Minister support Ceri and Frances’s campaign for Hugh’s law? If not, will he explain why?

PIP and DLA are not the only benefits to be severely delayed by a system that does not work. Carers can apply for carers’ allowance and other associated carer support only once PIP and DLA have been approved for the young cancer patient they are caring for. That means that carers may be caring for many months before they can apply for carers’ benefits and get what they are entitled to.

I could continue. There exists a loophole in universal credit whereby young people who are at university when they are diagnosed with cancer and then defer their course, with the aim of restarting it when they finish treatment, are not entitled to student finance because they are not actively attending university. However, they not entitled to universal credit either because they are still classed as “in education”. Students should not be forced to totally drop out and start university from the beginning. To state the obvious, a cancer diagnosis is not their fault, and forcing them to disrupt their lives even further is completely pointless. Will the Minister look at the broader welfare support system in relation to children and young people with cancer, in co-operation with expert charities, to close other loopholes and ensure that the full package of support meets their needs?

There are too many points to raise in just one debate, but I would like to conclude on a slightly more optimistic note, following the confirmation from the Department of Health and Social Care that the children and young people cancer taskforce will be launched this year, and that it will seek to identify ways to improve the experience and outcomes for children and young people with cancer. Although I await the specifics of the relaunch of the taskforce, the principles are of good intention. I know that the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) has been an incredible champion of this project. Will the Minister work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the children and young people cancer taskforce looks at psychosocial support, which is something I could not address in my speech, along with welfare. Will he also make representations to the Health Minister to ensure that this new body links appropriately with the long-term cancer strategy for England?

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

Like everybody else, I am delighted to find you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Lewell-Buck

I welcome this debate, as well as the speech that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) made and the consistent attention he has paid to this issue since he was elected last year. I also welcome what all the others who have spoken in this debate have said. There is a lot that I would like to say in response, but unfortunately I have only four or five minutes in which to say it. I will have to cut my remarks rather short, so I might need to write to the hon. Gentleman with some of my responses, rather than putting them on the record now. However, I am glad that he has drawn attention to the fact that the Secretary of State has said he is reinstating that taskforce in our 10-year plan for the NHS, within which he has made it clear that he wants a separate cancer plan. It will be very helpful for the children and young people cancer taskforce to focus on identifying ways to include outcomes for this particular group of patients.

The debate has focused on the contribution of the social security system in supporting families of children and young people with cancer through the disability living allowance for children aged under 16 and the personal independence payment for those who are 16 or above. Those benefits are available if a child or young person’s condition or illness is long term and gives rise to care, daily living or mobility needs. The benefits contribute to the extra costs arising as a result of a disability or health condition. I will not claim that the support meets all the costs, as that would be incorrect, but they are a contribution—that is intention behind them.

The assessment for those benefits is based on the needs of the individual rather than on the condition, and many with cancer are eligible. The highest level of benefits can mean an extra £9,500 a year tax-free—the order of magnitude that the hon. Gentleman refers to. The benefit is usually paid to the parent of the child, and so can help with overall family finances, as they see fit. We are currently supporting about 3,000 children under 16 and 2,000 young people between 16 and 24 with cancer, with an average award of around £155 per week.

[Clive Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will give way, but I will not have very much time.

[Clive Jones]

I apologise for leaving the Minister with only a few minutes. I have no idea what he is going to say, but I would like him to make some comment about Hugh’s law, and whether or not he supports it, because it would make a huge difference to every single family.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am not able to announce a big change this afternoon along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I do want to comment—and would have done, if I had had a little longer—on the qualifying period. I have met the campaigners with their MP, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). They make a compelling and vivid case about their own experience, as well as the financial and emotional difficulties that they suffered as a result.

The qualifying period is there to distinguish between a short-term and long-term condition. It is not about fraud, as the hon. Member for Wokingham suggested might be the case; it is there to make that distinction, and it is quite an important part of the eligibility process for benefits. I am not able to announce a big change in that. Of course, we will keep these things under review. I have met the campaigners, and we will certainly listen to representations that come forward—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Jones Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is right: 60% of unpaid carers are women, but women spend more hours caring, so they are disproportionately represented when it comes to receiving carer’s allowance. This is a small, but significant and important, step forward. It is a signal that the new Government understand that as people live for longer and care for longer, we will have to do more to help families balance work and caring responsibilities. That is the truth of family now: it is as much about caring for our elderly and disabled loved ones as it is about caring for our own wonderful children.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

14. What estimate her Department has made of the number of pensioners eligible for Pension Credit but not claiming it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)]

Estimates for pensioners who are eligible for but not receiving pension credit were published in early October. The estimates show that more than 800,000 pensioners—individual pensioners, not households—are entitled to pension credit but are not claiming it.

[Clive Jones]

As the Minister will know, the Chancellor’s cruel decision to tie winter fuel allowance to pension credit, despite knowing that the uptake of pension credit is very low, will force thousands of vulnerable pensioners to choose heating or eating this winter. With 16,577 pensioners in Wokingham expected to be affected by the cuts, will she extend the deadline to apply for pension credit and consider pledging further support to increase take-up?

[Emma Reynolds]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell): the deadline remains 21 December. Thanks to the Government’s steadfast commitment to the triple lock, more than 12 million pensioners will see their pension increase by more than 4% in April next years, up to £470. Over this Parliament, they will be better off by around £1,900, thanks to the triple lock. Low-income pensioners can also apply for the warm home discount scheme and, thanks to the extension of the household support fund, local authorities can target that support on low-income pensioners. In the longer term, the warm homes plan will transform homes across the country by making them cleaner and cheaper to run.