| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
26 Feb 2009 : Column 167WH—continued
“We are especially disappointed that, in spite of claims that no reform of Carer’s Allowance will take place until a major reform of carers’ benefits, the Welfare Reform Bill contains plans [Clause 12 (1) (b)] to remove Adult Dependency Increases from those in receipt of Carer’s Allowance—up to £30.20 a week at the current rate. The table on page 80 of the Impact Assessment accompanying the Bill confirms that: ‘There will be a reduction in income for some carers.’”
Will the Minister comment on that? If it is likely to be the case, that part of the Welfare Reform Bill needs to be revisited. If the plan is to do one review of the whole, and that is why there is delay, at least delay that aspect as well.
People may think that I say such things because I am an old left-winger, or even a young left-winger, but I believe that millions of people up and down the country share my concern. If the Government can put a lot of money in for the bankers—rightly, because, as we all know, we need to keep the economic system going—why can they not do more for carers?
4.21 pm
Greg Mulholland (Leeds, North-West) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John.
I begin by explaining that I am wearing two hats today. I am speaking as a proud member of the Select Committee, and I am happy to follow my colleagues and their excellent contributions, but I am also speaking on behalf of my party.
I have been on the Work and Pensions Committee since I joined the House in 2005. With my first hat on, I would like to say that this is probably the best report that we have done. It is excellent, and its timing could not have been better. The Committee was everything that a Select Committee should be—unified, strong and bold—and, as well as looking at some of the failures of the past, it suggested positive ways forward to the Government.
I thank my colleagues for working together. I am sure that everyone on the Committee would agree that we work together extremely well, and we also get on very well, I am glad to say. We all take the roles of a Select Committee—scrutinising and coming up with positive proposals—very seriously indeed, and we would all want to thank our excellent staff, who do so much to enable that.
The only problem I may have today, Sir John, is referring to my Select Committee colleagues by their first name, which we always do. I ask you to forgive me if I make any mistakes. I am not entirely sure of the names of all the constituencies, such is our usual informality, but I will do my best.
I began by saying that I am wearing two hats today. One thing that we found through our extensive research leading up to this excellent report was that that is exactly the situation that carers find themselves in. They have the difficult job of juggling different roles. Their job of caring is often combined with work, and is sometimes combined with child care or other family responsibilities. Of course, whether they work or not, they still carry the burden of ensuring that sufficient income is coming into the household, whether that be from employment or through pensions or benefits.
What I found particularly helpful in our inquiry and our work was going out and speaking to many carers. We wanted to hear their voice, and I found the experience extremely powerful. Since then, like other Members who have mentioned that today, I have been speaking to carers in my constituency.
Something that will live with me for a long time is the visit to Harrogate, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), our Chairman, and during which we heard from carers of all ages. We heard about the challenges for older carers and the situation that they face. Many of them do not see themselves as carers—they are simply caring for their spouse, their loved one. They do not even see that they have a caring role.
And then, of course, we had that inspiring meeting with the young carers. We heard from incredible young people who have spent most of—in some cases, almost all—their childhood looking after a parent. We heard about their experiences and how they coped. That, too, has been touched on by other hon. Members. Caring has taken those young people away from the normal, everyday things that children would and should take for granted, if they are able to do so. I found that particularly powerful. Because we were listening to the voices of carers and were driven by the experiences of carers up and down the country, we made proposals that I am proud to associate myself with.
The bigger picture, of course, is that we want to move on to changing the position of carers in this country. I am sure that the Minister is listening carefully to everything that we have to say and I know that the Government took the report seriously. As our Chairman said, carers are an incredibly precious resource in our society, which is what we need to consider as we move forward on policy.
Carers are individuals who contribute to society. Our Select Committee Chairman gave that extraordinary £87 billion figure as the amount that they save the public purse every year. That is astonishing. To be honest, I cannot imagine such a figure. It is enormous, but, to put it in context, it is more than the annual spend on the entire national health service. I find that hard to take in, but it shows exactly what carers are doing, not just for their family members and loved ones, be they spouses or parents, but for our society and country. It is time that we recognised that. Instead of thinking, “What benefits can we give them?”, we should ask, “How do we recognise them and their contribution?”
The simple fact—I do not believe that anyone, including the Minister, would disagree with this—is that in the past we have not adequately recognised the support that carers give to people or their contribution to society. That really has to change.
Another thing that we found as part of our inquiry was that we are far behind some other countries. Select Committees can and do look at examples of best practice from all over the world and at the systems of nations that are ahead of us. We are ahead of many nations on many things, and I hope that they are looking to us to see how they can improve things, but we found examples from other countries—I believe most of us on the Committee would say from Western Australia in particular—that are, frankly, miles ahead of what we are doing in relation to not just the money given to carers to recognise their contribution, but signposting and support. Other countries really are a long way ahead.
There are examples in this country of where we are doing things very well, such as what we saw in Harrogate.
Miss Begg: One of the other things that we discovered in Australia is that they are much more imaginative in devising activities for people and in giving carers respite. The one that sticks in my mind is the men sheds; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman remembers that. Perhaps he will explain how they worked, particularly for men with Alzheimer’s. They had a shed to go to—that is what men do—and there was a women’s equivalent. It was so imaginative, so simple and so effective.
Greg Mulholland: I warmly thank the hon. Lady for that important example, which shows that meeting people and seeing what they are doing can influence a report and, we hope, policy. We all agree that things must change. The Government do, too, having just published the carers’ strategy.
Of the main issues in the Committee’s report, we must take the financial one first. Our frustration is that the Government have taken it last. There are positive aspects to the carers’ strategy, but until there is an adequate system of financial recompense for carers, which recognises their contribution, the many other measures, although very valuable, will simply not change the lives of carers as we have said they must.
The Committee Chairman and other Members have mentioned the double whammy: caring costs a considerable amount of money for the carer and the family, but carers often have to give up work, too, so caring costs more and they lose their source of income. Some costs of intensive—perhaps round-the-clock—care have not been considered, and, piled on top of that, often there are additional services that, frankly, are essentials, not luxuries.
Some carers find themselves in a desperate situation, and, as I have seen with constituents, there are other things, too, such as the extra transport costs of going to hospital and higher bills for heating if the condition of the person being cared for requires it. That is the situation for the Pinders, my constituents. Mrs. Pinder cares for her son, Matthew, who has complex needs and is susceptible to the cold. That is why I have separately campaigned for severely disabled people to receive the winter fuel allowance. Many additional costs can be associated with the carer and the person being cared for.
Carer’s allowance, the only benefit for carers, is £50 a week and is simply not adequate. Everyone who has spoken has said that we cannot wait until 2011, and, although I acknowledge that these are important changes to complex benefits, carers cannot wait and the issue must be dealt with much more quickly.
Carers UK conducted a recent survey of the situation and found that almost three quarters—74 per cent.—struggle to pay essential bills, which in turn are going up. Some 32 per cent. of carers paying rent or a mortgage could not afford to pay it at all. Perhaps the most shocking finding was that 52 per cent. of carers, which is more than half, are cutting down on what they spend on food, just to make ends meet. That is entirely untenable and unacceptable.
Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the May 2008 Populus poll for Saga, which found that less than 1 per cent. felt the current carer’s allowance was appropriate, gives a pretty good impression of how bad the situation is?
Greg Mulholland: That is another powerful example, and I thank the hon. Gentleman, my Committee colleague, for it.
There are also powerful disincentives. The Government and the Committee have focused on enabling people to work or to stay in work, but the reality is that to qualify for the allowance one cannot earn more than £95 in paid employment. With all the extra costs and burdens, that is not sensible. It means that many carers cannot work for a little bit when they want to, even though that could save the state money while enabling them to get by more easily. Again, that must change, and change now.
The Committee Chairman and others mentioned the issue of complexity. Of all the evidence we heard, the most extraordinary, for many of us, was the nonsense of older carers going through the process of claiming carer’s benefits and being told that they were eligible, but then being told that they could not have them because of overlapping benefits. We found that hard to understand; we found it hard even to believe that it was happening, with computers pumping letters out to them.
Let us not forget the emotional effects, either. All the carers and carers’ organisations that we spoke to said that the complexity puts people off applying for even those limited benefits, which they and the person for whom they care so desperately need.
I must echo what the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) said. I have already said that, looking to the future, the simplification of the overall benefits system is a positive thing, but, with a united voice, the Committee wants strongly to convey the message that the situation of carers must be changed and simplified now; it cannot wait for the wider picture. We believe that it is perfectly possible to simplify the situation so that they receive more adequate benefits and move away from the nonsense and the disincentives. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.
As well as addressing the overlapping benefits issue that older carers face, any examination and reform of the benefit system must consider the 21-hour study rule, which one Member has already mentioned, because we
must remember the emotional well-being of carers. We heard very powerfully in Harrogate and on other visits about how it is so important for carers—who are themselves isolated and often stuck at home, except when they go to the shops for essentials—to study. At the moment, they cannot, but it is good for them and, once their caring ends, it supplies them with potential.
The system pays no attention to what happens after caring stops, and, for older people, the sad reality is that many carers outlive those for whom they care. What happens then, when, perhaps for many years, the carer’s life has meant caring for that loved one? What happens after that? Unless we provide more support, allowing people to study, train and focus on getting a job after caring has ended, we will not have done a joined-up job.
Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about training, and he is quite right that training and facilities should be available at the end of caring. Does he agree that the state—the NHS, care homes and social care policy making—is missing a trick? Although some people will have had enough of caring, others will have learned skills that they want to take into other productive work—in care homes and in the NHS. Should we not look at that aspect, too?
Greg Mulholland: Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that excellent point. That idea came directly from speaking to people who had obviously turned into wonderful carers and, as well as having the potential to become professional carers, they could advise and train other people. He is right: they are a resource that should be tapped.
The hon. Gentleman made another excellent point on a matter of real concern: the Welfare Reform Bill’s plans to remove the adult dependency increases for those in receipt of carer’s allowance. The regulatory impact assessment already recognises that the measure will mean a reduction in income for some carers, as he said. I ask the Minister to address that today, given the thrust of the carers’ strategy and what the Government are trying to do. They must deal with it swiftly, because it is appalling for a Government change to come in now that will mean a drop in income for some carers, particularly when bills are rising and the cost of heating and the cost of living are going up. That will send out all the wrong messages. I ask the Minister and the Government to consider that a priority.
It is important always to remember that we on the Committee do not just have a scrutiny role. We also come up with useful suggestions. Our suggestion for a two-tier system, as we heard from the Committee Chair and other Committee members, is sensible, intelligent, workable and, most importantly, just. I hope that the Minister will reconsider. This is one of the most fundamental recommendations that we made. The carer’s allowance should be replaced with a two-tier system: a carer’s support allowance—paid at the same rate as jobseeker’s allowance, with an opportunity to earn a modest, sensible amount in paid employment—and what the Committee calls the caring costs payment, which would be available to all carers in intensive caring roles and payable to those over the state pension age to compensate for the additional costs of caring. To some extent, that is based on the model in Western Australia,
but it is a sensible, workable solution that could be introduced soon. I ask the Minister to give us his thoughts on that today.
I conclude by reminding all hon. Members, but particularly Ministers who have responsibility, that we must not fall into the trap of seeing this issue as just for the Department for Work and Pensions. Of course, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood said, people forget that the role of carers comes under that Department, but the impact and importance of carers are clearly much wider. There is a health role, too, for example.
The impact of improving the lives of carers can have a huge impact on a number of issues. We have heard about young carers and what they do. Just consider the educational disadvantage that a lack of support for young carers can mean in respect of their lives and earning potential and for their children in future. Child poverty is affected by this issue. Everyone realises that pensioner poverty is an issue—the Committee is about to go into a report on it—but child poverty can be affected by a just settlement for carers.
On pensioner poverty, which will be a focus for the Committee, we should look again at the changing demographics and the rising numbers of people who need caring for, which will mean even more carers, as other hon. Members have said. We face a £6 billion shortfall—we bandy that figure around—and we need a solution for that as quickly as is reasonably possible.
I thank my colleagues and friends on the Select Committee; I am proud of the work that we did. I feel that by listening to carers and allowing their voice to be heard, we were able to produce a strong report that gives the Government the opportunity to advance some workable, sensible, just solutions that could transform the place of carers in the 21st century.
I hope that the Minister continues in the direction that the Government appear to be taking with the carers’ strategy, which contains some positive things. As he knows, we have warmly welcomed the access to information and so on, but can we seriously look at a just financial settlement for carers, as well as those other positive things, and can we do it soon, because carers simply cannot wait?
4.44 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne) (Con): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I do not know about you, but at times during this debate I have felt hardly entitled to contribute at all, not having been to Australia—rather like the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey). Despite that, I intend to add a few comments.
I have listened intently to this important and timely debate. I thank the Select Committee, which has produced a thorough and well-researched report, and particularly the Committee Chairman who introduced it. As constituency Members of Parliament, I think that we have all been touched by the dedication and hard work of the carers whom we have come across. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) gave us some examples from her constituency. It is impossible to say with total accuracy how many informal carers there are in the UK at this moment—one estimate is around
6 million—but one thing we know for sure is that that figure will rise as people live longer and the demographics change in the next few decades.
One reads a great deal in the papers about the so-called sandwich generation, of which I regard myself as a member: people who are looking after both children and elderly parents. Only the other day, there was a report on the number of such carers who are drawing down from their own pension pots to look after their own parents.
As the Committee’s report rightly mentions, based on the Leeds university study, carers save the Treasury an estimated £87 billion a year, which, as has been pointed out, is a sum greater than the entire annual budget for the national health service. Unfortunately, not a lot of that money is passed on to the carers themselves. The report says that caring has a considerable impact on carers’ incomes. We have heard all sorts of evidence to that effect this afternoon. Research by Carers UK found that carers lose out on about £11,000 a year as a result of either giving up work, reducing their hours or taking a junior position. This loss of income is hardly replaced by the £53 a week, from April, that they will get in carer’s allowance.
Astonishingly, the Government do not know the current take-up rate for carer’s allowance. The latest report—I mean “latest”, because it only appeared in the early hours of this morning—from the National Audit Office states that estimating the take-up rate is incredibly complex because it is based on the take-up rates of other benefits. We have heard something about that from other hon. Members. However, according to the Department’s own longitudinal study, of the 882,800 carers entitled to carer’s allowance in May 2008 only 480,730 claimed it. That is the equivalent of £740 million in carers’ benefits going unclaimed in a single year. It is remarkable that the Government’s own carers strategy failed to address directly this rather obvious problem with the benefits system, given the amount of invaluable service that carers give not just to those they care for, but to the state and the taxpayer.
As we have seen, the eligibility criteria for carer’s allowance are complicated. A carer must provide service for over 35 hours a week to a person receiving a qualifying disability benefit. Such strict criteria leave little room for manoeuvre. As has been said several times, carers who care for more than one individual for less than 35 hours a week each cannot receive carer’s allowance. Age Concern and Help the Aged rightly pointed out in their joint briefing note:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |