---

Mr. Pickles: I intend to speak for only a few moments, but first I apologise to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for missing the early part of his speech. He did himself a disservice by saying that the proposal would cost £5 million a year. I am not sure that that is correct. I think that it would cost a little less. I may be wrong, but I understand that the carers premium includes a roll-on when a cared-for person goes into permanent residential care. I do not know the precise cost--the Minister may tell us--but I think that it would be less than £5 million.

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say implicitly that the Liberal Democrats have come round to the Conservative way of thinking on invalid care allowance policy and ensuring that the rule under which ICA stops being paid at 65 disappears. We welcome that.

Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickles: Of course. I am only too pleased to do so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is about to announce more policies on which he agrees with the Conservatives.

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As someone who will undoubtedly have made a great and close study of our previous general election manifesto, he will be aware that we have held the policy position that I annunciated again today for a very long time. We welcome the Conservative party joining us.

Mr. Pickles: Those remarks are not much of a guide as we are used to alternating, yin-yang policy from the Liberal Democrats. I was trying to be nice about their new clause and, despite that provocation, I shall happily go on to be so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our system can sometimes be a little harsh. A lot of benefits stop when one person dies and another is left to sort things out. We all have experience of winding up our parents' estates and people's minds are on all kinds of things at such a distressing time. This relatively modest proposal would provide a breathing space.

I was involved in a discussion in a statutory instrument Committee about the way in which we get bereaved people into the gateway. I was surprised to learn--even given the fact that the payments that we were discussing would end after a year--that those receiving bereavement benefits would enter the gateway so suddenly.

9.15 pm

I think it reasonable for a bereaved person not to have to engage in a single-gateway interview. In most cases, the carers allowance would stop immediately, and the financial circumstances of the bereaved person might well force that person to engage in a work-focused interview without being in an appropriate mental state. I do not believe that the Government want that to happen.

29 Mar 2000 : Column 428

We have considerable sympathy with the new clause. The Government may want to reflect on the possibility of achieving its aim by other means. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam intended his new clause to be, as it were, a probing amendment, but we think it would be advisable to give the Government some time in which to consider the matter.

Genuine problems are experienced by bereaved carers. The close relationship that was involved makes it that much more difficult. Even if the Government do not wish to accept the new clause as it is drafted, they may want to try to relieve the burden experienced by carers in the critical first few months after a bereavement.

Angela Eagle: New clause 9 would extend the period of entitlement for all recipients of invalid care allowance to eight weeks after the death of the person who was cared for, and in respect of whose care the allowance was being paid. I have considerable sympathy with the intention, which is to help a small but vulnerable group of carers who receive ICA for looking after a disabled person who subsequently dies.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make clear the Government's agenda for carers, following publication of the report on the national strategy for carers last year. In his preface to the report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:

Carers are among the unsung heroes of British life.

He said that they

should be properly recognised and properly supported.

I suspect that all hon. Members endorse that view.

The national strategy put down a marker by stating that the Government would

keep under review how financial support for carers--including Invalid Care Allowance--can best meet needs--

that is, the needs of carers. A few days later, the report of the royal commission on long-term care suggested that

the system could do more to offer support for carers.

The Government are clearly committed to reviewing the financial support available to carers. In doing that, we must take account of the work being done to prepare our White Paper response to the royal commission's report. I can confirm that financial assistance for carers, including ICA, is being considered carefully. We will of course consult the Carers National Association and other representative groups as and when we have specific proposals to make.

Mr. Burstow: Is the review of the care allowance part of the review that will lead to the White Paper dealing with long-term care, or is it considered a separate matter, subject to a separate report? If there is to be a separate report, when can we expect it to be dealt with here?

Angela Eagle: I am always being asked to give exact dates in this context. As hon. Members will know, to give exact dates is to fall into a trap, because of the practicalities of government and the difficulty of securing agreement before delivering a honed Green or White Paper in a short time. However, the White Paper that responds to the royal commission must be written and developed with that in mind. My assumption is that they are separate documents. As I have said, the ICA itself and

29 Mar 2000 : Column 429

the financial assistance that is given to carers are being looked at. The cut-off date is, by definition, one of the things that we are examining.

I emphasise that the group of carers that the amendment seeks to help is small--a point that the hon. Gentleman made--although none the less deserving of consideration. Bereavement is a universally difficult time for those of us who have experienced it. Inevitably, family finances must be re-examined in many circumstances--for example, with the loss of the disabled person's income. Financial advice, including benefit advice, as well as practical or work-related advice, may have to be sought.

In that context, the ONE process can be helpful. I reconfirm, given the comments by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), that there is a process whereby, if someone is bereaved and they say they could not cope with a work-focused interview, they will be given benefit advice and the interview will be deferred. There may be people in that position who would want such an interview to set some strategic goals. Different people react differently, but deferral is a possibility. That will be sympathetically considered in each individual case through the ONE process.

The amendment may not achieve as much as its supporters hope. There is already protection for many carers whose need is greatest: for example, those on low incomes who have lost a spouse. Carers who receive income support and the carer premium, which is the increase paid specifically for people entitled to ICA, have their benefit adjusted to take into account the loss of that ICA and will continue to receive the benefit, including the carer premium, for eight weeks. In addition, during that eight-week period, they are exempt from the need to be available for, and actively seeking, employment to qualify for income support. That leeway allows them time to adjust and to seek advice.

Where the death is that of a spouse, bereavement benefits are usually paid very promptly: within a few days of the claim. As such payments are made in preference to ICA, an ICA run-on would be of little or no material assistance for those carers.

For those who are most vulnerable and in greatest need, their income is already protected on the death of the disabled person for whom they have been caring, despite the loss of ICA. In practical terms, the amendment would help only those carers whose income is over income support level.

None the less, whether it is a well targeted proposal is a matter of judgment. I hope that I have made it clear that, in broader terms, the Government are strongly aware of the need for adequate financial support for carers. We are aware of the existing commitment to keep that under review in the context of longer-term care issues and the need to address the concerns of carers in the round. In the light of that, it would be difficult, for a number of reasons, to anticipate specific and piecemeal changes at this stage.

We are looking to examine the matter in the round and to take forward a strategy, not to tackle it piecemeal, as the amendment does. I hope that, in the light of those comments, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

29 Mar 2000 : Column 430

Miss McIntosh: I make a brief point following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow).

The Minister has been sympathetic to the amendment. I would be delighted to see it in the Bill in some shape or form, if not exactly as it appears at the moment. The Minister has been generous enough to say that the Government will look at the matter in the round. The amendment has the benefit of reflecting the policy of the official Opposition. It is obviously commendable for that reason. The support would be given only for a limited period and to an easily identifiable group of people.

As the Minister has admitted, the help would come at a time of particular vulnerability and difficulty for those people. It would be most generous if the Government, while not acceding necessarily to the precise words of the amendment, examined the matter in the round and saw fit to continue the level of support in the shape of that bereavement benefit. That would be most welcome.

---