Commons Sense

House of Commons · Bill Debate

Terminal Illness (Support for Terminally Ill Recipients of Occupational Pensions) Bill - Clause 1

02 February 2024 · 12 other contributors

Opened by Laurence Robertson Con Tewkesbury

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Laurence Robertson raised concerns about terminal illness (support for terminally ill recipients of occupational pensions) bill - clause 1 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • The amendment proposes extending the definition of 'terminally ill' from six months to twelve months for occupational pension recipients whose schemes have become insolvent.
  • This change aims to provide financial assistance to terminally ill individuals facing loss of pension payments due to scheme insolvency.
  • The Bill seeks to align this definition with social security provisions under the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Laurence Robertson Con Tewkesbury

The amendment seeks to extend the definition of 'terminally ill' from six months to twelve months for recipients of occupational pensions whose pension schemes have become insolvent. This change will provide financial assistance and fairness to terminally ill individuals who face loss of pension payments due to scheme insolvency. The Bill aims to align this definition with social security provisions under the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022, ensuring terminally ill people receive necessary financial support in their final days.

Other contributors (12)
  • Richard Fuller Con North Bedfordshire

    Asked about the assessment process for determining whether a person is 'terminally ill' under this Bill, and if there are specific guidelines or a list of illnesses that qualify.

  • Greg Knight Con East Yorkshire

    Inquired about the provision for second opinions in cases where there is doubt regarding the terminal status of an illness. Also questioned whether clause 2(4), which allows a Minister to decide not to implement the measure, is entirely satisfactory.

  • Asked about consultations with charities and other organisations regarding the impact of extending the period from six months to twelve months on terminally ill individuals and their families.

  • Philip Dunne Con Wells

    Supports the Bill introduced by his hon. Friend, recognising the increasing proportion of pensionable individuals in constituencies and the importance of providing equity to those diagnosed with terminal illnesses who are members of defined benefit or defined contribution schemes.

  • Jo Gideon Lab Stoke-on-Trent North

    Highlights the issue of poverty among terminally ill individuals, using a case study to illustrate financial difficulties faced by people in their last months. Argues for early access to pensions to ensure dignity and independence for those facing terminal illness.

  • Philip Davies Con Shipley

    Supports the Bill due to its alignment of pension rules with benefit provisions, arguing that medical advances over three decades have made the current six-month rule outdated. He cites support from charities like Motor Neurone Disease Association and Macmillan Cancer Support for extending eligibility under special rules to 12 months.

  • Richard Fuller Con North East Bedfordshire

    Questions whether there have been assessments on potential costs changes if the period is extended from six months to twelve months, and inquires about possible implications for pension fund rules and levies.

  • Greg Knight Con East Yorkshire

    Asks for clarification on the necessity of granting the Secretary of State flexibility to introduce transitional arrangements through clause 2(7), questioning if such discretion is warranted given parliamentary approval.

  • Rob Butler Con Aylesbury

    Congratulates Mr Robertson on tabling an excellent piece of legislation that amends the rules around the Pension Protection Fund to align with other measures such as personal independence payments, disability living allowance, employment support allowance, and universal credit. Supports extending eligibility criteria from six months to 12 months for terminal illness payments, providing certainty and support during stressful times. Encourages pension providers to better look after people protected by individual pension funds.

  • Vicky Foxcroft Lab Lewisham North

    Congratulates Mr Robertson on bringing the Bill before the House, supporting its aim to expand eligibility criteria for terminal illness payments from six months to 12 months. Expresses concern over financial struggles faced by terminally ill individuals and highlights research showing that one in four working-age people who die are in poverty at the end of their life. Questions why DWP did not look into this issue when changing its definition of a terminal illness. Supports consistency across DWP's various agencies to ensure clarity on entitlements.

  • Jo Churchill Con Chipping Barnet

    The Bill extends similar support through compensation payments made by the Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme to individuals expected to live up to 12 months, aligning with recent amendments to social security benefits that have allowed faster access to financial support. It also ensures consistency in how terminal illness is defined across various health and welfare systems.

  • Laurence Robertson Con Tewkesbury

    Thanked the Minister and shadow minister for their contributions, acknowledging speeches and interventions from colleagues. Emphasised the importance of considering illness diagnosis and seriousness beyond just time in assessing pension payments. Welcomed the Minister's confirmation that the Government intends to ensure quick implementation after Royal Assent.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy