§ 6. Mr. ThurnhamTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the equalisation of pension ages for males and females; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. HagueWe have received more than 4,000 representations about the equalisation of state pension ages.
§ Mr. ThurnhamIs my hon. Friend aware that several other countries are moving towards a common retirement 6 age of 66, or even 67? Does he agree that those people who want a common retirement age of 60 should face the fact that that would cost more than £4 billion? Should not the Opposition get off their backsides and go and see the reality of what is happening in, for instance, Sweden and Denmark?
§ Mr. HagueI am aware of the developments in the countries to which my hon. Friend refers. They are subject to many of the same demographic pressures as we are. In this country equalisation at 65 would mean that there would be 2.7 working people to every retired person in the year 2030, but equalisation at 60 would mean a similar support ratio of 1.8 working people to each retired person in that year. So there would be major implications for future expenditure if an age as low as 60 were to be chosen, but that is one of the available options. The Government will announce their decision in due course.
§ Dr. GodmanIs the Minister in a position to estimate the effects of equalisation of the payment of pensions to men and women on women aged 60 to 65 who are in receipt of invalidity benefit? Is it his Department's intention to continue with its appeal to the English Court of Appeal concerning Commissioner Skinner's decision to restore invalidity benefit to women aged 60 to 65? Will the Minister answer the question himself?
§ Mr. HagueThere has been no change in the Department attitude on that question. Obviously, there are implications for expenditure between the ages of 60 to 65 when we come to consider the equalisation of state pension age, but there is no change in the Government's policy on that matter to announce now.