Dealing with the noble Lord’s last point, about the references, I presume he means references to "under pensionable age". Paragraphs (a) and (b) of new Section 2D(2) pick up somebody who, ""is under pensionable age, and … a member of a couple"."
I think that that is the reference that the noble Lord sought.
Dealing with the amendment more fully, it is not our intention to introduce the progression-to-work pathfinders for those parents who are of pensionable age. However, in order to achieve that intention, it is necessary for the provisions to define the meaning of "pensionable age" and to do so in a way which will treat men and women on an equal basis. If this amendment is accepted, men aged 60 or over would be treated differently to women of the same age until retirement ages are equalised for men and women in April 2020; I do not think that that was the intent behind the amendment, but rather that it was to probe, as the noble Lord explained. That is why that provision is there.
The progression-to-work pathfinders are for parents of working age with a young child. In the rare cases where claimants of state pension age have a youngest child in this age group, they would still have voluntary access to the support on offer. For those parents who are about to reach pension age and have a youngest child aged three to six years old, we will still require them to attend a work-focused interview so that an adviser can discuss with them the benefits of entering work and the support available to help them do so. This is in line with proposals under Clause 28 to introduce work-focused interviews for people of pension age.
When introducing this measure, we will not roll this out immediately to all parents who qualify. Instead, we would want to introduce the progression-to-work model over time. When rolling out this initiative we will take a number of factors into account, which may include the age of the parent. I hope that that has dealt with each of the two main points that the noble Lord has pressed me on and, accordingly, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c287-8GC Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:44:08 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568365
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568365
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568365