| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
26 Feb 2009 : Column 154WH—continued
The report mentions the importance of training for Jobcentre Plus staff so that they respond appropriately to the needs of those with current caring responsibilities
and those who want to sign on for employment because their caring responsibilities have finished. Jobcentre Plus staff should be aware that such individuals may have been out of the job market for a long time and not have the skills, education or confidence to enter the world of work. Staff should ask why people have been out of the job market for a long time and whether they have had caring responsibilities so that they can better respond to the needs of those who have been carers but are no longer.
The report commented on the social care system. That area is not the Minister’s responsibility, but we included those comments because the social care system cannot be divorced from benefits and work issues. He must work with colleagues in other Departments, especially those with responsibility for health and social care, to produce comprehensive packages. Good things are happening in the realm of social care such as the development of individual budgets, direct payments and the personalisation of services for people with disabilities. Carers should be part of that. Where money goes in, the social care sector is changing, as are the services available for people with disabilities and elderly people.
Those changes will impact on the evidence that the Select Committee received on issues such as care vouchers. Some employers give their staff vouchers so that employees who are carers can purchase social care support. That benefits the worker and the employer. Those developments are taking place at the same time as the move in social care away from providing services directly to social care recipients to giving them the money to buy their own care. On the one hand, social care vouchers are suggested; on the other, there is an entirely different mechanism for providing social care.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne) (Con): Does the hon. Lady share my disappointment that the suggestion was not taken up that care vouchers be piloted among those who work at the Department?
Mrs. Humble: I do share that disappointment. There would be value in piloting the scheme to see how it works. Some organisations already run the scheme and want alterations to how it is offered. Pilots would give an opportunity to see how the scheme can marry with the changes that occur in social care as the personalisation agenda is pushed forward.
In the future, vouchers may be unnecessary. However, they may be a short-term response while the personalisation agenda and individualised budgets are pushed further. That area should be explored further in the social services Green Paper that is soon to be issued by the Government. Again, I say to the Minister that the Department must be aware of the changes that are being introduced in social services.
Finally, I am proud to be a member of the Select Committee that produced such an excellent report. We should not just give up now that we have had the Government response. Our message to the Government is that we will not go away, this issue will not go away and carers will not go away. As the Select Committee Chairman said, we are here to give carers a voice.
3.28 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): We have heard two comprehensive speeches, and I do not intend to repeat the points that have been made. I echo the comment made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) that this is a substantive report and it has been well received. As a member of the Select Committee who went to most of the sessions, if not all, I am proud of it. It is a good report and a tribute to the Committee.
On benefit simplification, as I said the other day in the debate on the uprating statement, we are in a ridiculous situation. There are so many income replacement benefits and they are uprated in so many different ways—in line with the Rossi index, the retail prices index and the consumer prices index. There is a case for looking seriously at a single, straightforward, working-age benefit. That may be simply unaffordable in the current circumstances. However there is a duty on us as a country to look again at this extremely complicated system.
I find the Government’s response to our suggestion that the carer’s allowance should be overhauled rather odd. It is inconsistent to say on the one hand that the carer’s allowance is not a wage for caring and is not intended to provide compensation for the costs of caring, and, on the other, that the White Paper “Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future” confirms the Department’s intention to explore whether a single working-age benefit is the correct approach for carers. If the Department feels that there is a case for a single working-age benefit that includes a carer’s allowance, then Ministers should say so. It is wrong to say that the carer’s allowance should not be an income replacement benefit and then say that they will explore the subject in the context of our review of a single working-age benefit. I may be misunderstanding the Minister’s intentions. I know that he cares about this issue, but it seems to me that carers are being given a bit of a tease. They are being told, “We are going to look at this allowance in the context of income replacement”, when the Government have no intention of doing that. If I am wrong about that, then no doubt the Minister will tell us.
If we consider pensions, once a person gets to retirement age and pension credit, they get their income replacement—their pension income replacement—and an additional payment if they are a carer. What our report suggests is that we should have something that is consistent with that for people of working age—or at least that we should review that. Why is the Minister saying that we should have to put that off and treat it as part of the single working-age benefit review when that is some years away? One wonders whether one can hear the rustling of that longer grass, and whether this is not a question of Ministers kicking the matter into the medium term in the face of quite a lot of public concern about a group that does so much for our society and gets so little for it. I should be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on benefit simplification and whether he is serious about looking again at whether it should be an income replacement benefit with an addition.
We were very impressed when we went to the Harrogate centre. Carers know where to go because there is a sign saying “Carers Centre”, and that is always a good start. If carers go in there, they find deeply experienced
people who know about carers and their benefits and what is on offer. The staff know their stuff and provide good advice. We met carers who had been helped by the centre. In large parts of the country, there is nothing as simple as that. Will the Minister become a strong advocate for a simpler, better system in which carers can get the help that they need?
In Australia, we were very impressed—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but I was impressed by the respite that was on offer. In Australia, there is a clear recognition that if someone is a carer and they want to work, they may need respite. Carers can reach a point at which they cannot go on. In Australia, they can ring up and get immediate respite help. Moreover, some schemes exist that enable people to take a break. They can go with the person for whom they care, or on their own to recharge their batteries. I thought that that was excellent. I should be grateful to hear something from the Government about respite. Is it on the agenda? It was not mentioned in the strategy document, but it is very important to somebody who is caring.
Harry Cohen: May I say something before the hon. Gentleman leaves this issue of a network of carer centres up and down the country, which is something that I strongly support? The Government said that while they gave grants to carers’ organisations, including those that ran carers’ centres, it was for councils and their partners to ensure that there was appropriate local support. Is that not kicking the prospect of achieving a full network into the long grass? What about those local authorities that do not provide such a service? A lot of local authorities complain that they have not had a grant from the Government to do so and that such centres are a low priority for them. That is why we will not get a national network. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must get their hands dirty to ensure that there is one?
Mr. Heald: I agree with how our Chairman, the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), put it. There are lots of different pockets of money, all of which are no doubt being used to help carers, but there is not a strong enough network and a clear enough brand to help carers in the way that they need. The joy of the Harrogate centre is that it is just there, bold as brass. A sign says “Carers Centre” so we knew where to go and that was that. There is a lot to be said for something that is more solid in the way of branding and for strengthening of the network. I am not sure whether that would require extra budget. It may be a question of pulling together the money, getting the branding right and making a simpler statement and a stronger network.
I welcome the national helpline and the website, but feel that we should consider improving arrangements for employment and study. I notice that the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills is setting up an adult advancement and careers service in the autumn. Hopefully, that will have some focus on carers. However, how does trying to encourage carers to take work and support them in work fit in with the 21-hour rule that says that someone can train or study only for a limited period? If the Government are so keen on skills—I certainly am and we know about the Freud report—what is the sense of continuing with such a limiting rule? Why have the Government frozen the amount that a person
can earn while receiving carer’s allowance? We suggested that the system should be simplified so that the uprating and the threshold go up at the same time. The Government’s response was to freeze the threshold and give no help at all. I support what has already been said about this report, and hope that the Minister will answer those questions.
3.37 pm
Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South) (Lab): I should like to extend my thanks to the members of the Work and Pensions Committee for producing a thoughtful and good report. Like the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), I think that this is a good piece of work, and I am very proud to be part of the Committee that has produced it.
Our Chairman has said that carers are the silent group, the group that nobody listens to. All of us feel that we have played a small part in giving voice to carers. They are people who work seven days a week, 24 hours a day caring for a relative, friend or next door neighbour. I wonder why such people are so silent and why we do not hear their voices very often. I think it is because a lot of our attention is concentrated on the recipients of the care. The Chairman said that he was a carer for a short time over Christmas when his wife broke her leg. I bet she got lots of cards saying, “Get well soon” and, “I hope you will soon be up and about”. I am sure that she got the odd bunch of flowers—her husband is shaking his head—visitors, and lots of tea and sympathy because she had broken her leg. I also bet that the Chairman, her husband, did not get any of those things. I am fairly sure that he did not get a card saying, “Good luck on your role as a carer” or, “I hope things work out well for you.” I am also fairly sure that no one knocked on the door and said to him, “You go and have a break, we’ll look after your wife for you”—I know that they would not tell him to go down to the pub, because he is teetotal. The tea and sympathy and concern are generally for the person who needs care.
I speak from personal experience. I have often been the recipient of care, mostly when I was younger, from my parents. I must say that I gave them a pretty hard life. When a person is going through a lot of pain and misery, and is finding life difficult, they take it out on the people who are closest to them—their nearest and dearest. They are the ones who are asked by, say, a child with a disability, “Why can’t I be normal?” or “Why can’t you take my pain away?” Parents get that kind of pressure, and they are also the carers. They have a double burden. They have the burden of caring and of doing the state’s job—often, they do not want the state to be involved. Many people, particularly those who care for older people, do not want their relative to be in a residential or old folks’ home; they want to keep them at home. At the same time, particularly if the person who is being cared for can be difficult or has behavioural problems as a result of their disability or illness, or due to mental illness, they often have the burden of being the butt of the anger of the person for whom they are trying to care. However, they do not walk away. They stay, day in day out, year in year out. That is why it is important for Committees such as the Work and Pensions Committee to take their plight seriously, and for the Government to do likewise. Without those carers, the whole care system would collapse.
I think that carers save the Government £87 billion a year. I do not think that any of us are advocating that carers should relinquish their role. They assume their responsibilities, willingly in some cases and reluctantly in others, because they think that they can probably provide far better care than could ever be provided by a state system, no matter how good. Carers are the silent group, as the Chairman of the Committee said.
I am following other speakers, and I am not sure what bits of our report to talk about—a lot has already been covered. However, individual stories often tell us more than anything else. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) used his speech to highlight individual cases, and I will do the same. More than anything, individual cases illustrate what difficulties and problems can arise. The biggest single thing that the Government can get right for carers is respite. Perhaps we do not give enough attention to that.
We are lucky in Aberdeen because we have a carers’ centre. Last year, when we were producing the report, I was amazed by how many carers I met—I have been meeting a lot of carers in the past week in my constituency, and I will come to why they have been knocking on my door. The Committee met a lot of carers. We visited Harrogate, and I went to my carers’ centre to talk to people. They raised the issue of young carers, who are often forgotten. In some cases, people’s whole young lives are affected by their caring role. Any aspirations and ability to go into further or higher education, for example, are curtailed because they care for their parents.
We met some children in Harrogate whose homes were dysfunctional because a parent was a drug addict. Those individuals can lead enormously unsettled lives. I remember vividly one of the people who worked at the centre in Harrogate saying that parents who had mental health problems—they might be manic depressives—often caused the most difficulty. She said that a child could adapt remarkably well if their life was dreadful all the time; they simply learned that that was the norm and to cope. However, some mental health illnesses mean that the parent is up and down, and there are huge differences between manic and depressive phases. The children of those parents find life the most difficult. Things can be great if the parent is in a manic phase and there is lots of energy going around, but the children do not know how long the phase will last or when it will end and the whole family will tumble back into depression. That can be difficult to cope with. That is why respite for young carers was talked about when I visited the Aberdeen centre.
As part of national carers week in December last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) and I ran a carers surgery so that people could come to see us—he did it in the morning and I did it in the afternoon. The enormous range of carers who came in that day was interesting, from the man who had reluctantly allowed his wife, who suffered from Alzheimer’s, to go into a care home, to the mother whose daughter was at a special school but reaching the transition period, who felt that there was nowhere to go.
I should explain the situation in Aberdeen as it relates to the latter case. Aberdeen city council has a fairly major problem with its finances. Last year, it had a £50 million deficit. It took the decision that children who were at special schools could no longer stay on in school to age 19, a provision that had existed for some
time. If people attended a special school, the school leaving age was effectively 19, and the six months before was used as preparation for transition. The decision was taken, presumably to save money, that those people would have to leave school at 18, like everyone else. It was taken arbitrarily, and with no proper discussion. The mother who came to see me thought her daughter had six months in which to prepare and get ready for adult life and move from children’s to adult services, but was told that her place at school was going to be withdrawn, and there was nothing in its place.
She was not alone. Other constituents have come to see me with exactly the same problem. I thought that I was being very successful as an MP, because I seemed to win every case I took up with the local council. It would back down, saying, “They’re not going to have to leave school at 18, they can continue.” However, I found out only last week that it was not down to my success as an MP; the local council found that people had nowhere to go, and the preparation had not been done, so people had to go back to their school. Imagine the upset that that caused in the family. We are still in that position.
Another constituent, Margaret Hodder, got in touch with me last week. Her daughter is 18, and she has autism and bipolar disorder. The daughter will be leaving school in the summer, but Margaret does not know what will happen to her, because the council is not providing the appropriate support. Part of the problem—this is why I have seen a lot of carers in the last week—is that, due to budget constraints on the council, decisions are being taken that affect the care and respite that parents will get.
The council has two day centres—Rosehill and Burnside—to provide respite for a range of people. However, one of them is to close—I believe I heard two days ago that it is probably Burnside. Some 190 people go to the two day centres, but the council wants to cut it down to 100. It is going to get rid of some people. It said that over-65s did not qualify, so they will not go to the day centre, which is fine. It will get rid of others by reassessing people under new criteria. They will go because they will not be severely disabled enough. However, a large number of people will be left without the day centre.
Today’s Press and Journal, the paper for north-east Scotland, tells the story of a mother, Aileen Hutchison, whose 31-year-old daughter Susan has cerebral palsy. I must declare an interest; Aileen was in my class at school, so her story is all the more poignant. What she said sums up why we wrote the report.
She went to a meeting to find out what was going to happen. At the moment, her daughter attends the Rosehill day centre five days a week and is thriving. Aileen says in the paper that the council
“admitted that the council’s plans are to save money but tried to say that the plans will also improve the service users’ lives. When it was pointed out to them that this decision does not only affect the service users but their families too, they didn’t even respond.”
That goes back to what I said originally. We often think of the service users or the people needing care, but in the impact studies that must be done under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, we forget to factor in carers’ needs as well. The Committee Chairman said that carers were entitled to respite. The carers in Aberdeen do not think that they are entitled to respite; they are losing what respite they had.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |