House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Nov 1998 (pt 43)

Agriculture

That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.

Northern Ireland

That the draft Local Government (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.

That the draft Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 23rd July, be approved.--[Mr. Hanson.] Question agreed to.

10 Nov 1998 : Column 275

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Social Action Programme (1998-2000)

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8238/98, a Commission Communication on its proposed Social Action Programme for 1998-2000; supports the Government's view that the Programme rightly places jobs at the heart of its framework for action; and also supports the Government's intention to give due consideration to specific Commission proposals as they come forward.--[Mr. Hanson.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation. Ordered.

11.42 pm

Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne): I begin by welcoming the Minister to his new role. I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the problems faced by my constituent, Margaret Edwards, and others, who, as lone carers, work hard to look after their disabled children at home. Paul Edwards is totally immobile, and suffers from severe cerebral palsy and epilepsy. He requires constant care. Margaret has devoted a large part of her adult life to caring for him, and has sought available assistance by presenting the compelling facts connected with Paul's needs, rather than merely complaining about the very difficult situation that she and Paul face daily.

I think that we would all accept that the birth of a child lays a responsibility on the parents. Equally, it can be easily accepted that, if a child is severely disabled, the parent's responsibilities become much harder to meet. How much more must that be so in the case of a parent who has to care for a disabled child alone.

Margaret Edwards's plight, sadly, is not unique; but it is true that many people in her position might feel, with some justice, that they could not avoid putting their child into some form of permanent institutional care. Margaret Edwards has resisted that option throughout the 19 years for which she has cared for her son, but circumstances have made her choice increasingly unsustainable. I have been doing what I can to assist Margaret and Paul since I entered the House, and have seen at first hand the tremendous efforts that Paul's mother has made to offer him something approaching a normal existence.

At every stage, Paul's mother has made great efforts, on her own, to keep Paul at home and to give him proper care. I corresponded with Motability, and, although progress was made, Margaret Edwards sacrificed her existing car, which meant that she could no longer collect friends to see her and Paul, and took out a loan to purchase a vehicle capable of taking a wheelchair and occupant without transfer. She could only afford an older vehicle, and it has generated its own costs and problems. We worked together to seek timely assistance from the local social services department, and I pay tribute to the devoted staff there.

By the time Paul was 16, he weighed the same as his mother--nine stone--and Margaret Edwards found it increasingly difficult to deal with the average number of 33 lifts that were required each day to cater for Paul's needs. Special adaptations have been made to Paul's home, but it has always taken time, and carers like Margaret find it increasingly difficult to wait--sometimes for years--for practical support of that kind.

I am keen for the House to consider the plight of my constituent, not least because--as Margaret has acknowledged--she is not in a unique situation. We know that many families are held together by the largely unsung work of carers. The Carers National Association has advised me that there are an estimated 5.7 million carers throughout the United Kingdom--about one in eight people. The majority of those carers provide limited assistance, but some 1.7 million provide 20 hours of care or more a week.

10 Nov 1998 : Column 277

To highlight the position of Margaret Edwards, it is worth recording that the number of carers who care single-handedly has increased over the past few years, and that more than a third of carers carry out their task without outside help. As I have said, there are a considerable number of lone carers, and they deserve our special attention.

Paul is now 19, and has left school. Although his school years were also difficult for his mother--especially during the long holidays--the problems, particularly financial, have worsened considerably since Paul entered adulthood. It is likely that, if he were not severely disabled, he would be preparing to leave home and make his way in the world; his mother would be able to take up full-time employment again, if she wished, and broaden the scope of her life with new pastimes and a wider circle of friends. All that is denied to both Paul and his mother.

Although Paul attended a day centre, its working hours are less than normal school hours. Margaret Edwards found herself in a grim "Catch 22" situation. Because of her caring role and the fact that Paul will never be able to support himself, she was unable to work enough hours to earn enough to be fully independent and get off income support. Indeed, when she had to have an operation and go into hospital, and was thereafter recuperating, after four weeks her benefits were stopped, and her income was reduced to £40 a week. She also discovered that she was not entitled to respite care for the ensuing two years.

In the past, the Government have expressed their desire to review the social security system, with specific regard to provision for disabled people and their carers. Unfortunately, my correspondence with the Department of Social Security and others on Margaret Edwards's behalf leaves me concerned that the special problems experienced by lone carers may be overlooked. Indeed, a number of ministerial answers contain suggestions that go very little way towards appreciating, let alone addressing, the needs of lone carers.

One suggestion was that Paul might benefit from the social fund towards one-off expenses that he might need to meet. Most expenses that are associated with Paul's care are certainly not one-off. Carpets must be replaced frequently, and special bedroom and bathroom equipment purchased, most of which will probably have a definite life span.

One of Paul's particular needs was for an adjustable bed. His mother approached the social fund for support. I am glad to say that help was forthcoming, but Margaret was told that the fund did not normally provide finance for such equipment, and certainly not for items costing more than around £500; it is worth noting that specialist care equipment is very expensive, and physical adaptations will often be required to the carer's home to ensure that it is safely installed.