| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
26 Feb 2009 : Column 173WH—continued
“Fundamentally, the current benefit system is financially inadequate for carers, discouraging to claimants, and far too complex.”
The Government’s response to the report acknowledged that the current system of carers’ benefits lacks regard for the different situations and needs of carers. If a carer needs more flexibility to balance caring and working—because, per hour of service, the carer’s allowance sits well below minimum wage—the Government provide little advice or guidance.
The National Audit Office report is not very flattering. It finds that a fifth of carers still have difficulties in applying for carer’s allowance and it mentions the fact that the Department does not actually know the real
level of take-up. It also reveals that while Jobcentre Plus is the main source of employment support for carers, only about one third of Jobcentre Plus personal advisers believe that carers receive the support that they need or should expect. More than 70 per cent. of those who had contacted Jobcentre Plus for employment support in the past year found that its services were not well suited to their personal circumstances as carers.
My party is working on ways to simplify the benefits system so that the take-up of those key benefits is improved, and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke about that. Several hon. Members talked about the holy grail in this area—a single working age benefit. I am not trying to raise the temperature of the debate at this late stage, but in many ways the Government’s response was dismissive to some important points in the report. Paragraph 32 of the response states:
“The White Paper confirms that the Department remains attracted to the idea of a single working age benefit”—
“and will continue to explore whether, over the longer term, this is the right approach.”
That choice of words does not suggest that a single working age benefit is top of the Minister’s in-tray, but I agree with hon. Members who have said that perhaps it should be. I take the point that the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and others made that we should not let the best be the enemy of the good and do nothing because we hope one day to reach that nirvana when everything will be perfect. However, we need a bit more enthusiasm from the Minister for getting on with this.
Without access to flexible work schemes, many unpaid carers are unable to continue working, so a future Conservative Government will ensure that every unpaid carer has the right to ask for flexible working hours so that they can manage their career and caring responsibilities in the best possible way. That is something that my hon. Friend raised.
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend is making an important point about the future. The bill for benefits for those who care for disabled people will go up a good deal. I hesitate to mention Australia in the light of his earlier comment, but the approach there is that everything possible should be done to help carers to work if they want to. That relieves the state of part of the burden, and at the same time it is what carers want. Is that not something that needs to be given much more attention? Training, opportunities to work and so on are win-win.
Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s further reference to Australia. He has obviously been hacking into my computer, because I was about to deal with some of his very good points.
Our welfare to work proposals will also help those carers who are out of work but are able to enter employment by giving them help and support so that they can return to work as soon as possible. Carers who are already out of work need help in different ways. We heard a couple of times about the strange rule of 21 hours a week for education and training, and surely Ministers should examine that urgently. The Government should encourage training, as my hon. Friend said, so that carers’ skills do not become rusty or out of date.
The Conservative party’s welfare reform package is being spearheaded by my about-to-be noble Friend David Freud and includes proposals to help carers who are out of work to re-enter the work force by giving them help and support. When they are in flexible, carer-friendly work, a Conservative Government will help them to stay in work by ensuring the swift roll-out of individual budgets and direct payments. That will mean that instead of being fitted into a one-size-fits-all benefits system, carers will get the help that they need and want.
Comments have been made about care vouchers, and I have received briefing from Employers for Carers. Responsible, good employers, such as John Lewis, see that as the way forward, and it would be useful if the Minister said something about that. The press release of Employers for Carers says that back in August 2008, the Select Committee recommended not only that the Government carry out a full cost-benefit analysis of the care voucher model, but that the Department pilots the scheme for its employees. I thought that I had the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble)—Fleetwood is where the tram stops—on board, and I do not see why that cannot be considered seriously, because Ministers can control that directly.
The hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and, I am sure, others rightly referred to help and advice. We all know how important advice is, and in its briefing Age Concern and Help the Aged said that there should be a cross-Government strategy for the delivery and funding of information and advice, which would meet the needs of carers and others. That chimes in with the briefing from the Local Government Association, which says that good-quality information and advice are the first things that people with care and support need and their carers want. I am sure that that is right.
Many aspects of local government are having problems with cutbacks that have to be made because of lack of Government funding. In some parts of the country, advice services are one of the first areas to fall to the axe. In its Fair Care campaign, the Local Government Association set out the main problems and said that the system is underfunded, unfair and unclear. It went on to say that because of the tight financial environment in which they operate, councils now have little alternative but to tighten their eligibility criteria, raise charges and reduce services. How true that is.
The current economic climate does not help. On page 20 of the Select Committee’s report, it says that it was right to place these issues in the broader context of child poverty and pensioner poverty. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) touched on that.
The hon. Members for Bradford, North and for West Bromwich, West referred to child carers, who are a huge and often hidden problem. We know that there is an existing and growing problem with pensioner poverty. The official figures show that about 2.5 million now live in official poverty, and many are teetering on the edge simply because their savings—they did the right thing all their lives, as the politicians told them to, and put money aside while they were working to supplement their income in retirement—are bringing them a zero return. If that were not bad enough, to add insult to injury, when some of the benefits are calculated, it is assumed that they are receiving 10 per cent. on some of
their savings. I would love to find the bank or building society that is giving such a return because I would be there like a shot.
Mr. Rooney: It was 18 per cent. under the Conservatives.
Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that sedentary intervention. Whatever it was, I do not think that interest rates in the real world were zero. That is my point.
I join the Committee, whose members get on hugely well with one another—I am waiting for the drinks trolley to come around and to wander down memory lane—in welcoming recent pension reforms that will do more to ensure that carers, the overwhelming majority of whom are women, have a better chance of qualifying for a full state pension. On page 59 of its report, the Committee attaches some faith to the new system of personal accounts to help carers with unstable working patterns to build up a pension pot, but many of them are precisely the sort who may be caught in the trap between means-tested benefits and personal accounts. That issue is still far from being resolved.
Pressure has built up on carers as people must delay selling their homes to fund long-term care—that is clearly a huge problem at the moment—or as those who have sold their homes still cannot afford long-term care because interest rates have fallen to about zero. Without unpaid carers, local social services departments would be overwhelmed by the needs of disabled and chronically ill people. The Select Committee report shows graphically that the Government’s strategy on carers is woefully inadequate in tackling this growing problem. A key concern is the failure to tackle the postcode lottery for services, as well as the need to improve public recognition of the key role that carers play in society. In addition, there are no hard commitments on tax and benefits in the Government’s proposals.
We are all united in our deep appreciation of the role of carers in society. I can assure the House that the treatment of carers will be a major priority for an incoming Conservative Government. However, I would not wish to raise false hopes. The amount of practical help that we will be able to give, at least in the immediate term, will have to be within the inevitable constraints of the economic situation that we inherit from the current Government. We will have tough decisions to make, but we certainly will not forget the needs of carers.
5.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jonathan Shaw): I thank the Select Committee for and congratulate it on the report, which is a well informed piece of work. The dedication required to produce it has been reflected in the comments made during the debate. That is borne out by the fact that the Committee took the time to visit carers and speak to them to find out how it is in real life, not just from the theoretical warmth of a Committee Room. That is to be commended.
The Committee decided to put on page 7 of the report a job advertisement that had been written by a carer and placed in a paper in New South Wales. It refers to the qualities required to become a carer and things that a carer will have to endure. It begins by saying that it is a
“critical role for self starter”
“hands on role”.
“experience in first aid, counselling, occupational health and safety, pharmacology, cooking, cleaning, communication skills”,
as well as the things that people have to endure:
“The successful applicant must be able to endure the lack of joy, self-love and relationships indefinitely. Must also be able to function alone as friends leave due to your state of depression.”
It continues in that vein and is fairly depressing. Those remarks are meant in some humour, but the advertisement wants to provide some reality about how some people are.
What strikes me about today’s debate is that it is important for us to understand the complex needs of carers, because they are not a homogenous group. At one level, people are in a state of depression and there is a feeling of burden and isolation. That is without doubt something that people experience not just in Australia, but in the United Kingdom today. The 4 million or so carers referred to by the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), are not a homogenous group. People have complex needs and are a variable group. Indeed, the Chairman told us that he was a carer for a short period for Mrs. Rooney—a lady whom I know well. She is a very patient lady, as those who know the Chairman will understand.
Jonathan Shaw: Indeed so. The Chairman talked about the contribution that the voluntary sector has made. He referred to the Princess Royal Trust, and Carers UK was also mentioned. I have met representatives of both organisations, and not just in the comfort of my lofty Whitehall office; I have also attended conferences. I can assure hon. Members that going to the Carers UK members conference and doing a question-and-answer session is good for one’s health, because it brings one into close contact with the people whom the Committee met.
One of my first jobs before coming to this place was as a care assistant. I have undertaken many of the tasks that carers do. Those tasks need not be referred to in detail in this debate, but I can assure hon. Members that I have been at the coal face. The difference—it would be right of people to bring this up—is that I left the establishment where I worked when I finished my shift. There is no end to the shift for carers, as the Government are acutely aware.
As some hon. Members said, it is important to consider the context not just of other Departments, but of other services that are provided. For a carer or someone being cared for, the NHS is crucial. Does it not impact on someone’s health if they have to wait more than 18 months for an operation? Absolutely. Does it not impact on someone’s health if they have to wait up to two years for an operation? Absolutely. Does that happen now? All hon. Members will know from their constituencies that it does not.
We have met our target of 18 weeks or less. If we had said to the 4 million carers in 1997, “You will not wait longer than 18 weeks for your operation,” they perhaps would not have believed us, but meeting that target has had a huge impact—not just for carers, but for all
people. The party that I represent in government is very proud of that and I am sure that we are all pleased, because all our constituents benefit, and carers and people being cared for benefit in particular.
Comments were made about the benefits system, and reference was made to the care and support system. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) talked about the ageing society. That is without doubt one of the big social policy issues that we have to grasp and find solutions to. There are competing demands and, yes, the situation is difficult. Gladly, we had the debate on pensions, and the House reached some consensus on it. I will be one of the first people working to the age of 66 to make the contributions, which is fine.
There is the carer’s allowance, and hon. Members have referred to the fact that people would prefer that it be increased. Should it continue to be universal? Should it be targeted as we grow older? The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) talked about a financial black hole caused by the ageing society, and also about eligibility.
All those factors impact on carers and the people for whom they care, so we will publish the care and support Green Paper. From that, we need a wide debate about priorities, quality, affordability and whether measures are universal or targeted. Those are difficult issues for us. Just as we had the pensions debate—it took us a while, but we got there—we have to have a wide-ranging debate on this issue. It is important that we have that debate and bring people with us, so that they understand the complexities and difficult decisions. Carers are very much part of that.
I hope that we can arrive at consensus in the same way that we did on pensions. If we do not take that approach, we will propose something and there will be resistance to the change, as there was to some welfare benefit reforms in the past. We need to deal with benefits reform and care and support in tandem as we proceed with this important reform.
Mr. Rooney: Can the Minister give today a timetable for the Green Paper—a prospective time frame for its publication?
Jonathan Shaw: Is my hon. Friend referring to care and support?
Mr. Rooney: I am referring to what the Minister suggested about options for carer’s allowance.
Jonathan Shaw: I am not able to give my hon. Friend a timetable. He knows that the care and support programme is coming up soon. We have signalled the way forward by giving a commitment on certain dates, but as I said about the NHS, we need to consider in a wider context the reform of services in relation to benefits and how that can affect carers and those for whom they care.
A number of Members said that the disregard of £95 was insufficient. It is reasonable to point out that it was increased two years ago from £50; we wanted to give a significant uplift in order to assist people and provide some certainty. It could be argued that there should be a taper, but that would introduce more complexity. Universally, Members have said that carers have told them—they have told me, too—that they do not like complexity. We will keep that under review, but there is not a simple solution. If we do not have what I might
call the cliff face, we must have a taper; but with the taper comes more complexity. Again, carers have told the Committee and me that they do not want that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North asked whether carers who did not meet the conditions of the progression to work group, rightly referred to in the report, would be able voluntarily to enter that group in order to be assisted back to work. The answer is yes. I hope that that also answers the questions about assisting people into employment asked by the hon. Member for Eastbourne.
A number of hon. Members referred to the provision of carer centres. Special grants have been awarded to carers organisations, including those that run carers’ centres, to enable them to develop capacity. However, it is for councils and their partners to ensure an appropriate level of provision. We will do our bit, but local government needs to do its part as well. Do services vary from one authority to another? Yes, they do. That reflects the priorities of those elected to serve their local communities.
The report also refers to how to empower individuals. I have been taking part in the Committee stage of the Welfare Reform Bill today, and we are introducing the right to control benefits, some provided through social care and some through the Department, such as access to work. Indeed, there will be benefits also under the Health Bill, with tailored individual budgets. We will pilot those measures, working in partnership with carers’ groups, disabled people’s groups and local authorities, in order to find out what works. It is important to establish what works. If we do not have pilots—some have suggested that we should not—we shall have to roll out different budgets together. If it falls over, people’s anxieties will be raised, and we will lose the opportunity to introduce the necessary reforms.
We have been asked what steps are being taken to ensure that carers undertaking part-time work do not lose their entitlement to carer’s allowance as a result of the minimum wage. I hope that what I said earlier about the disregard will help. We will keep the matter under review.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) gave us examples from his constituency. He rightly mentioned the need to develop services in rural communities and to have individualised budgets. That will bring some tension without an economy of scale. Although we will have pilots for the benefits reforms that I referred to, it is important to consider rural areas; previously, I was Minister with responsibility for rural affairs, and I know that the hon. Gentleman was right to bring the problems in such areas to our attention.
I am encouraged that Conservative Members now support flexible working policies. There was a time when they set their face against people having time off for family matters. They have reformed, and that is welcome. We have to strike a balance between the needs of business and the needs of individuals, but if someone is already in work when they acquire their caring responsibilities, they will be pre-qualified to request flexibility. Again, it is an important piece of legislation that assists people in that regard.
The Coleman judgment was mentioned. We are considering the appropriate legislation in order to deal with that concern. That will be forthcoming soon.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |