COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Carer’s Allowance Bill
1 May 2008
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Gregory Campbell (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Fred Cobain
Mr Jonathan Craig
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Mrs Claire McGill
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr Alban Maginness
Witnesses:
Ms Janis Creane )
Mr Gerry McCann ) Department for Social Development
Mr John O’Neill )
Mr David McNarry ) Member of the Legislative Assembly
The Chairperson (Mr Campbell):
Welcome to Mr John O’Neill, Mr Gerry McCann and Ms Janis Creane. Please adopt the usual health warning with regard to switching off mobile phones. We shall be discussing the latest stage of the Carer’s Allowance Bill.
Mr John O’Neill (Department for Social Development):
We have already sent the Committee a briefing on this issue, and we shall address some of its main points.
People who are responsible for caring for others undertake a vast amount of work, and there is no doubt that such work is of great value not only to those for whom they care but to the wider community. At some stage of our lives, many, if not most, of us have adopted a carer’s role or had a family member who has required a carer.
Carer’s allowance is designed to provide a measure of financial support for a person who has given up the opportunity of full-time work in order to provide care for at least 35 hours a week to a severely disabled person who is in receipt of either the highest- or middle-rate care component of disability living allowance, or attendance allowance. As an income-maintenance benefit, carer’s allowance is paid to help to cushion carers from the financial effects of being unable to work full-time. It was never intended to be a wage for carers or payment for caring services. Therefore, it does not equate to the amount of care that is provided.
Carer’s allowance provides carers with independent income that recognises some of the sacrifices that are required when taking on the responsibility of caring for a severely disabled person. The extra costs that arise as a result of disability are recognised through the award of disability living allowance (DLA) or attendance allowance to the disabled person.
Although many benefit recipients satisfy eligibility criteria for several benefits at the same time, since the inception of the social security system, the fact that there should not be double provision for the same contingency has been one of its fundamental principles. In circumstances in which two or more benefits might be paid to cover the same purpose, such as for income replacement, only the higher benefit is payable. That structure enables finite resources to be focused more effectively on people who face the greatest financial pressure.
The overlapping benefit rules are not linked to recipients’ age and do not apply solely to state pension or carer’s allowance. Several other income-maintenance benefits are affected by those rules. For example, incapacity benefit, maternity allowance, contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance and bereavement allowance, none of which can be paid in full at the same time as carer’s allowance or each other.
The state pension is designed to provide an income in retirement. Similarly, carer’s allowance is designed to provide a measure of income replacement for those who are unable to work full-time due to caring responsibilities. Consequently, a person who cannot work because he or she has both caring commitments and reached state pension age does not receive double provision from the social security system for income maintenance.
In circumstances in which the state pension is in payment, usually, carer’s allowance will not be payable. However, if someone would receive less money from their state pension than from carer’s allowance, some carer’s allowance can be paid in order to make up the difference. Furthermore, in circumstances in which carer’s allowance cannot be paid, the potential recipient retains the underlying entitlement to the benefit, which allows access to the carer premium for income-related benefits, such as housing benefit or the equivalent additional amount in the form of pension credit.
The Carer’s Allowance Bill would prevent regulations that provide for carer’s allowance to be adjusted by reference to any state pension with the purpose of ensuring that state pension and carer’s allowance can both be paid in full at the same time. The abolition of the overlapping benefits rule would, in effect, make carer’s allowance a payment for performing the role of carer rather than being an income-replacement benefit. In addition, the Bill poses real problems, including significant cost implications and ramifications to the wider policy of social security parity.
We have refined the estimated costs that we initially supplied to the Committee to take account of the increased numbers of people affected and of the uprating of the carer’s allowance in April 2008. It is estimated that the Bill would generate additional gross expenditure of approximately £38·6 million per annum, based on current claim rates. Those additional costs would fall to the Northern Ireland block. If the Bill were enacted, the Department would be unable to find an extra £38·6 million from its budget. That cost does not take account of the potential increase in claims by those who do not currently claim carer’s allowance because of the overlapping benefits rule. A further factor that has not been taken into account is the projected rise in caring, which is the inevitable consequence of an ageing population.
The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) estimates that the number of people over the current pensionable age will increase by 39% between 2006 and 2021. The number of people who are aged 65 and over will continue to rise after 2021, and it is projected that there will be twice as many people aged 65 and over in 2041 as there are today. Therefore, costs could rise very substantially in the future. If enacted, the Bill would break the long-standing policy of parity with Great Britain, and, in effect, there would cease to be a single system of social security across the United Kingdom, which is provided for under section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. There is no statutory requirement under section 87 to maintain parity; rather there is a requirement to seek to maintain single systems across the UK. In some ways, section 88 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is more significant in that it provides for the funding arrangements and cross-subsidies in which we are allowed to fund social security in Northern Ireland. The Committee is well aware of the constraints of parity and of the substantial funding of £2·5 billion per annum that we receive from Great Britain to fund social security benefits. That funding is predicated on the maintenance of parity.
The Department has informally explored the possibility of an overlapping benefits rule for the carer’s allowance and state pension to be abolished in Great Britain. However, the estimated additional carer’s allowance costs of over £1·5 billion per annum seem to militate against that.
Carers over pensionable age on low incomes can receive additional help from income-related benefits, such as pension credit and housing benefit, which are paid at higher rates for carers. The Bill would do nothing to help poorer pensioner carers, as any increase in income would be fully taken into account for income-related benefits. Receiving carer’s allowance in addition to state pension would reduce or extinguish any pension credit and/or housing benefit payable. Therefore, some poorer pensioners could, in effect, end up out of pocket as a result of the Bill.
The whole issue of carer’s income and allowance is being examined in-depth as part of the review of the national strategy for carers being taken forward by the Department of Health in Britain. The findings of the review are due to be published in early summer. The Department, in conjunction with the Department for Work and Pensions, will then consider what changes should be made to the carer’s allowance.
The Chairperson:
You said that the Bill would generate estimated additional expenditure of £38·6 million and that the Department could not meet those costs. Hypothetically, what would happen then?
Mr J O’Neill:
It would then become an Executive issue, and the Minister would have to seek funding from her colleagues in the Executive. The money for social security comes from HM Treasury and is paid on the basis that we maintain social security under parity. If the Bill were allowed to pass, that arrangement would be beyond parity. Any additional funding would not come from the Treasury and would have to be found from the Northern Ireland block.
The Chairperson:
Are we effectively saying that the funding would have to come from some other pockets?
Mr J O’Neill:
It would be a matter for the Executive to determine whether budgets could be reprioritised to make the money available. The Minister has no funding available under social security, as the money comes from the Treasury to pay contributory and non-contributory benefits.
The Chairperson:
You mentioned the likely increase in claims due to the ageing profile of our society. You also said that with the overlapping benefits rule, some people do not currently apply for benefit. If the Bill were passed, how many additional people would claim in the first 12 months of its enactment, setting aside the obvious changes in demographics?
Mr J O’Neill:
That is an unknown quantity. Our statisticians have looked at the matter, and they say that there is not sufficient evidence available for them to make an estimate. The census statistics identified those people with some caring role, but that definition was left to the individual. We do not know how many people would fulfil the requirements of caring for someone in receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance to be able to qualify. We were told that the sample size is too small for the statisticians to make any meaningful estimate.
The Chairperson:
Nevertheless, the £38·6 million does not take account of any additional numbers.
Mr Brady:
The name is a misnomer; originally it was invalid care allowance ( ICA) and now it is carer’s allowance. When the allowance was introduced, the majority of people understood that it was for carers. It is an income-replacement benefit. My solution — although it may cut across what Mr McNarry might say in relation to the Bill — and if the money is available, is to have a stand-alone benefit like DLA and attendance allowance, which do not impact on other benefits. The DLA does not affect other benefits, it is not means-tested, and neither is the attendance allowance. The carer’s allowance, if it is to work, should be like that rather than an income-replacement benefit.
The briefing paper states that older pensioners can receive other benefits such as pension credit. However, the reality is that between £1 million and £1·9 million of pension credit is unclaimed by older people every week in the North. That, in itself, creates problems. Last year in Britain and here, around £4 billion of benefits was unclaimed by older people, which did not include disability benefits. Historically, the carer’s allowance has been a mess, and it continues to be a mess in the sense that the amount of people who have benefits is proportionately small. It does not reward people, although I know that people do not want a reward. However, in some cases, it does not even recognise the fact that people spend an inordinate amount of time caring for people. There is a rule that one has to be a carer for at least 35 hours, and that is the difficulty.
I am sure that Mr McNarry will expand on the issues where parity has been breached. In Scotland, for instance, there is no means-testing for home adaptations, which breaks the parity, and Wales has free prescription charges. There are several issues like that. The Committee’s difficulty — and the Assembly’s, unless it does something about it — is whether we are expected to rubber-stamp everything that comes through from Westminster. Proportionately in the North, we have more people with disabilities. Regional variations have not been addressed, and they should be. The Department should start to look at those issues.
Mr J O’Neill:
We have the highest rate of DLA take-up in the UK.
Mr Brady:
We also have the highest number of people with disabilities.
Mr J O’Neill:
That is reflected in the fact that one in 10 of the population in Northern Ireland claims DLA — 173,000 out of a population of 1·7 million, which is much higher than the rate in any of the regions in Great Britain.
Mr Brady:
We live in a very unhealthy place.
Mr J O’Neill:
That fact is reflected in the benefit being available. Therefore, the potential for carers to claim carer’s allowance is available because more people are getting the benefit to which the carer’s allowance is attached. It did start off, as you said, as invalid care allowance, and it is now called the carer’s allowance. However, the review that is under way is looking at the wider aspects of caring, and not just the monetary aspect. It is examining what other facilities ought to be available to carers. Finance is only one issue; there are other issues such as respite, which need to be examined in the round. The carer’s allowance is part of that review.
The Chairperson:
When do you expect that review to be completed?
Mr J O’Neill:
The review is scheduled to be published in early June.
You referred to parity and to rubber-stamping. I understand that the Minister will be attending the Committee in a couple of weeks to talk about parity and how that issue can be addressed in Northern Ireland. It is probably best to have that discussion then.
Ms Lo:
What affect would breaching parity on that issue have on the computer system? I remember that you mentioned that issue previously.
Mr J O’Neill:
The allowance is paid via a UK-wide computer system. I am not an IT expert; therefore, I cannot say what changes would be necessary.
Ms Lo:
I remember that you said that we may be required to set up our own computer system.
Mr J O’Neill:
Were we to breach parity, it may be necessary to set up our own computer system and to pay for it, which would have timing and financial implications.
Ms Lo:
Would that be costly?
Mr J O’Neill:
We do not know, because we have not yet asked that question. From my knowledge of social security computer systems, there is generally a need for a number of months’ lead-in when such changes are made. There would also be a cost implication. Furthermore, it would have to be incorporated into any current programme for maintenance purposes.
Mr F McCann:
It would be strange if one of the only reasons that we fail to support the Bill was because of a computer system. That would be a sorry state of affairs.
Perhaps the information does not exist. However, to give an example — although I know it would never be the case — what would happen if all the carers decided to stop providing care next week? Has anyone ever tried to estimate how much it would cost the Establishment or the Department in trying to provide that care?
Mr J O’Neill:
There is no duty on the Department for Social Development to provide care. We have a duty to pay carer’s allowance to anyone who meets the criteria. Other facilities and help available to carers is not a matter for the Department for Social Development; rather, that is generally the remit of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the health trusts. I cannot comment on what arrangements they would make in such circumstances.
Mr F McCann:
I understand what you say about the Department paying carer’s allowance. However, if the people were not being cared for by carers, there would be cost implications across various Departments. It is great that there are people who provide loving care who are not in it for the money — all they are asking for is some recompense for the love and care that they provide.
Mr J O’Neill:
I accept that. Carer’s allowance, as I said, is designed to go some way to meeting some of the costs involved in not being able to work full-time.
The review of the national strategy for carers is considering much wider aspects of the issue. A health and social care task force, an employment task force, an equalities task force and an income task force have been investigating all aspects of care and how the issues can be addressed. Therefore, what is being considered is not just the small amount of help that is available to carers, but the help that is available through the wider Government network and through local government. What help is available in education for those young people who are carers is also being considered. We will publish short-, medium- and long-term proposals to address that issue. As I said, carer’s allowance is just part of that arrangement.
Mr Brady:
You mentioned the levels of claims for disability living allowance being higher here. I am not sure what relevance that has. All that means is that there is more need for carers.
The Mayo Clinic in America did a study about 20 years ago that showed that Newry and Mourne has one of the highest rates in the world of multiple sclerosis, which is an extremely debilitating and serious condition. Sometimes people in the initial stages, and certainly the later stages, of that illness require a lot of care.
You mentioned that the issue is not simply about money for carers, but also respite. I am not sure whether you are aware of the lack of infrastructure and the lack of support that carers get from the trusts. It is minimal, and even abysmal. Although I am not saying that it would solve all the problems that carers face, extra money would certainly go some way to alleviating some of them. The need for respite for carers should also be addressed.
Mr J O’Neill:
The review of the national strategy for carers is a joint effort between Departments and carers’ organisations, and the lack of respite provision was one of the concerns raised by carers’ organisations. It will be addressed in the review of the strategy.
Mr Brady:
It may be addressed, but, ultimately, delivery will depend on how much money is available. I do not think that any of us foresee any major changes in the alleviation of the plight of carers.
Mr A Maginness:
Everyone present will agree with the intention of the Carer’s Allowance Bill in the name of Mr McNarry. All of us want to see additional assistance for carers. You have covered parity with GB, but have Scotland and Wales breached parity? If the Bill were to pass, what impact would it have on a carer’s entitlement to pension credit and housing benefit? Would the passing of the Bill be of assistance to carers? Would it adversely impact on them?
Mr J O’Neill:
It is not relevant to Scotland and Wales, because social security is not a devolved matter in those jurisdictions. Any changes in carer’s allowance in Scotland and Wales will apply to GB as a whole.
If the strategy proposes measures relating to health and social care, Northern Ireland will be in the same position as Scotland and Wales, in that relevant Departments will have to decide what they want to do in relation to those aspects of the strategy.
Pension credit is a means-tested benefit. Anyone who receives pension credit will exceed the permitted limit if they were also to receive the additional carer’s allowance. Therefore, they will lose their entitlement to the passported benefits to which they were previously entitled. [Inaudible]. Recipients of full retirement pension and carer’s allowance will be above the approved limit and, therefore, will no longer have access to the passported benefits.
Some people in Northern Ireland receive carer’s allowance and retirement pension, because the amount of retirement pension that they receive is lower than the amount of carer’s allowance. They, therefore, receive both to bring them up to the permitted amount.
Mr Cobain:
Before the Budget, the Minister had a long discussion with the Executive about housing. She wanted additional money and, eventually, the Executive found it for her. If the Executive wanted to find the £38 million, it could be done.
Mr J O’Neill:
Yes, it could.
Mr Cobain:
You say that there are 10,000 carers over pensionable age who, if they received carer’s allowance, would see a reduction in the amount of money received, and they would not be any better off financially. Would the money that they would lose equate to the additional money in the Carer’s Allowance Bill?
Mr J O’Neill:
We said that 7,500 would see a reduction in the amount paid, and 2,400 —
Mr Cobain:
It is confusing. Where would the reductions appear? Would they receive fewer benefits?
Ms Janice Creane (Department for Social Development):
Their pension credit would be reduced, because they are receiving an amount of carer’s allowance.
Mr Cobain:
Will the reduction in the pension credit equate to the increase —
The Chairperson:
Is the £38·6 million a net figure?
Mr J O’Neill:
They would receive the same amount of money, but they would receive less in the form of one benefit and more in the form of another. The overall amount that they would receive would be the same.
Mr Cobain:
They would not be financially worse off.
Mr Gerry McCann (Department for Social Development):
That is correct. However, 2,400 people would be taken out of the system, because they would be over the limit for pension credit.
Mr Cobain:
Would they get more money?
Mr G McCann:
They would lose their entitlement.
Mr J O’Neill:
They would not be passported to full housing benefit.
Mr Cobain:
Some older people own their own homes, so they do not claim housing benefit.
Mr J O’Neill:
They would have access to rate rebate or the new rate scheme.
Mr Cobain:
Can you explain the cost implications of that? Over 14,000 people who are entitled to carer’s allowance currently do not claim it. That is because they would be in breach of benefit rules if they claimed that allowance. The money in the Carer’s Allowance Bill would be on top of what they get now — they would be financially better off.
Mr J O’Neill:
The figure of 14,700 represents those people who are currently affected by the overlapping benefit rule. That figure of 14,700, multiplied by £50·55 a week, multiplied by 52 gives a figure of £38·6 million. That is the amount of money that would have to be found for those who would receive both a state pension and carer’s allowance.
Mr Cobain:
That is the point that I am trying to make — that those 14,000 people would be better off because they are not getting carer’s allowance.
Ms Creane:
But the 7,500 would not be better off. That would be reclaimed from pension credit, which is not included in the —
Mr Cobain:
Although the 7,000 would not be any worse off.
Ms Creane:
No, they would not.
Mr G McCann:
At the end of the day, they are not better off.
The Chairperson:
I understand that the 7,500 would not be any worse off —
Ms Creane:
They are included in the 14,000.
Mr Cobain:
Hold on. The 7,000 poorer pensioners would not be any better off, but they would be no worse off because they would be getting exactly the same amount of money. Is that right?
Ms Creane:
That is correct.
The Chairperson:
We have taken care of the figure of 7,500. We understand that.
Mr Cobain:
There are 14,000 current claimants who are over pensionable age but do not receive any carer’s allowance because of the overlapping benefit. I am not referring to the 7,500 or the other 2,500; I refer to the 14,000 who receive no carer’s allowance whatsoever because of the overlap. Would they get this carer’s allowance on top?
Mr J O’Neill:
No — 14,700 is the total number of current carer’s allowance claimants.
Ms Creane:
That includes the 7,500.
Mr G McCann:
That figure of 7,500 is part of the total number —
Mr Cobain:
That is misleading. Are we referring to the 14,000?
Mr J O’Neill:
Yes — once you start to take the figures apart.
Mr Cobain:
So 14,000 is the total?
Mr J O’Neill:
Yes — 14,700 is the number of people claiming carer’s allowance. Those will not all be pensioners — it will also be people under pensionable age.
Mr Cobain:
So are we talking about 4,000? Are we are not talking about 14,000?
The Chairperson:
Is everybody clear now? I am not.
Mr J O’Neill:
We are clear.
Mr Cobain:
This is an important point — when the paper states that over 14,000 carer’s allowance claimants who are over pensionable age are not claiming, that is not true.
Ms Creane:
It is true — they are not getting carer’s allowance but they are getting pension credit. The figures of 10,000 and 7,500 refer to pension credit claimants; they do not refer to carer’s allowance claimants.
Mr Cobain:
I am referring to the 4,000. This paper is very misleading. It states that 14,000 carer’s allowance claimants over pensionable age are not receiving a payment of carer’s allowance.
Ms Creane:
That is correct.
Mr G McCann:
That is a fact — 14,000 people are not receiving carer’s allowance because it happens to overlap.
The Chairperson:
We need to establish how many people would benefit in the net sense, individually. We need to establish by how much they would benefit, and how much that would cost.
Ms Creane:
The 4,000 who claim carer’s allowance but do not claim pension credit would benefit.
Mr Cobain:
That is the point that I am trying to make.
Mr G McCann:
Approximately 4,000 people would end up with more money in their pockets.
Mr Brady:
The £38 million that you mentioned is included in income-replacement benefit, which will have an impact on pension credit as an overlapping benefit. Can the Department produce figures for a stand-alone benefit that will not impact on the state pension or any other benefit, such as DLA or attendance allowance? I mention that because, when carer’s allowance was introduced, the understanding at the time was that it would be linked to what was then called mobility allowance, and it would not affect other benefits. That decision was then changed midstream, and it was decided that carer’s allowance should affect other benefits.
As I see it, the solution is to introduce a stand-alone benefit that does not affect any other benefit, such as DLA or attendance allowance. It seems logical and rational that for a person to qualify for carer’s allowance they must be looking after someone who is getting either middle-rate personal care or day- or night-attendance allowance, therefore the two benefits are linked — a person cannot get one without the other. If the linking of those benefits does not affect the amount that carers receive, I do not understand why receiving a benefit such as the state pension should affect the amount that carers receive. That seems to be a logical conclusion to reach.
Mr J O’Neill:
DLA benefits are paid to help people with the effect of disability on their lives.
Mr Brady:
That situation has also changed — we were also told that about DLA, but now the trusts are saying that that benefit should go towards things that the trusts should actually be paying for.
Mr J O’Neill:
The trusts are not involved with DLA benefits.
Mr Brady:
They should not be involved, but they get involved when they attempt to tell people receiving DLA that it should be used for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended.
Mr J O’Neill:
The Department pays DLA to people who meet the conditions for receiving that benefit; how the individual recipients of DLA use that money is a matter for the individuals alone.
Mr Brady:
My point is that statutory bodies are telling people that their DLA benefit should be used for things that it was never intended to be used for.
Mr J O’Neill:
They may be doing so, but that is not something that we can deal with under social security law.
Mr Brady:
If Government took a joined-up approach, you might actually be able to do something about it. [Laughter.]
Mr J O’Neill:
As I said, more joined-up approaches are being considered in the review of the carer’s strategy, which should be available in early June. For the purposes of paying benefits, there must be some means of defining what a carer is; at the moment, the definition involves caring for a person who receives the relevant benefit. We must be mindful that public money is being used, and we cannot simply pay a benefit to someone who claims to be a carer without having some agreed definition of what a carer is.
Mr Brady:
During Mr McNarry’s initial submission to the Committee, he made the point that a lot more public money would be used if people did not have carers and had to go into residential care instead; that is a valid point.
Mr J O’Neill:
It is a valid point, and I agree that carers provide a very useful and valuable service. Carers can, of course, still be in work. [Inaudible due to mobile phone interference.] The carer’s allowance is a payment that is designed to replace the income that people forego because they are not able to work full-time.
Mr Brady:
If the carer’s allowance is intended as income replacement, it should be a stand-alone benefit.
Mr J O’Neill:
That would require a change in legislation and, under parity, that change would need to be made in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mr Brady:
That is not impossible; it is aspirational, but it is not impossible.
Mr J O’Neill:
It is aspirational, and it would require the Minister here and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to an agreement and also, I suspect, raise the issue with HM Treasury. As I said, according to our colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, if similar provision to this Bill were implemented in Great Britain, the cost there would be £1·5 billion a year because of the larger number of people involved. The Department for Work and Pensions would have to decide whether that would be an appropriate and good use of resources.
Mr Brady:
They would spend £1·5 billion on many other things that most people would regard as superfluous.
Mr J O’Neill:
I am only concerned with social security expenditure in this instance, fortunately.
The Chairperson:
Everyone who indicated that they wanted to speak has had a chance to do so. Thank you for attending today’s meeting.
Mr McNarry, the departmental officials have indicated the progress of the latest stage of the Bill and the Minister’s likely intention. The Committee will be pleased to hear your views and may follow those with questions.
Mr David McNarry (Member of the Legislative Assembly):
I am indebted to the Committee for granting me the opportunity to hear what the officials have had to say. That is a new experience for me; I have had no contact whatsoever from any departmental official wanting to talk to me about my Bill. Indeed, I had to initiate a meeting with the Minister myself. I was grateful for that meeting — which took place on Monday 28 April — but I was not grateful for what the Minister told me.
Government circles estimate that carers in Northern Ireland save the Treasury over £3 billion per annum by caring in the home; they are volunteers on the cheap. A carer is a carer, irrespective of age. Considering what the Minister told me about her intentions on Monday, I am shocked and perplexed that she intends to use a reasoned amendment. My research indicates that a reasoned amendment is a wrecking device. Erskine May refers to it as a “fatal” device, designed to kill the Bill. Unfortunately, certain people intend to use a reasoned amendment at the plenary sitting on Tuesday 6 May.
This Bill is not about me; I have proposed it, but it is so worthy that anyone could have done that. However, the Bill is about the Assembly. The Minister’s intentions are being viewed as a contrived blow to carers. The activation of that plan will send a very bad signal to the public. The Bill has received support from the public and — in print — from the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission. I was labelled a spin doctor when I worked for the original First Minister. However, without the spin, I have received overwhelming messages of good luck from the public, carers and my colleagues. I have been particularly pleased by my colleagues’ support.
I am not sure where the Department is coming from regarding money; it seems to give a different answer each week. Although the Minister talked only about money in our meeting on Monday, the Department issued a press statement this morning, which states that there are:
“significant issues including the financial implications and the principle of parity”.
Unbelievably, it goes on to state:
“The Executive believes it would be premature to seek to legislate in this field before the recommendations of the Review have been fully considered.”
The Department has not made a submission to the review of the national strategy for carers. Although the Minister informed me on Monday that she intends to make a submission and speak to the Treasury, she, too, has not yet done anything about the review.
She also told me that she would speak to Carers Northern Ireland, Age Concern and officials from the Department for Work and Pensions. She intended to do a lot since Monday. The review is due to report in June, but Northern Ireland is not even on the Richter scale.
I noticed the look of surprise on members’ faces when they heard that the enactment of the Bill would cost the Department £36 million.
The Chairperson:
It is £38 million.
Mr McNarry:
It is £38·6 million; thank you. I have had no contact from the Department, so I am in the dark on the figures. When I previously attended the Committee as a witness, I asked whether the Committee could assist me in ascertaining how figures are attained. I would like the Committee, though the Chairperson, to help me reach a breakdown of the £38·6 million, between now and the morning of Tuesday 6 May. The figure has jumped from £20 million in a fortnight, and I will not be sure whether the Department is confident about its figures until I see the breakdown.
If private Members cannot introduce Bills without the type of ministerial interference that this Bill has to contend with — the fatal reasoned amendment — this place will become nothing but an echo chamber for the Executive. I say that for the sake of the Committee and for the integrity of the institution in which we sit. We may as well forget about having plenary sittings and, unfortunately, Committees. It is not as if there is an abundance of legislation coming from the Executive for Committees or Members to discuss. I sit on the Business Committee with other Members who are here, and if it were not for notional private motions, we would have little business to conduct in the Chamber. The fact that this is the first time that a Member has had the opportunity to introduce a private Member’s Bill is particularly relevant to the Committee for Social Development, because it is that Committee that has been charged to deal with that first attempt.
I have proved the legislative competence of the Bill; we can do what it says in the Bill. You have heard the reasons that it cannot be done, but I do not accept them. That argument will have to spill onto the Floor of the House on Tuesday when I move the Bill.
I am reminded of an early-day motion at Westminster on 26 June 2006 — you should recall that as well, Chairperson. SDLP MP Eddie McGrady called for:
“a review of the present social security legislation that prevents claimants in receipt of retirement pension from claiming carer’s allowance.”
I am delighted to see that the leader of the SDLP, Mark Durkan, supported that, as did the deputy leader of the SDLP, Alasdair McDonnell; Gregory Campbell; my good friend Iris Robinson; and my other good friends Jeffrey Donaldson, Sammy Wilson and Nigel Dodds.
The Chairperson:
Are those all the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament who signed the early-day motion?
Mr McNarry:
Those are all the names that are on my list. I can give you that list if you wish.
The Chairperson:
I did not want to leave anyone out who may have signed it.
Mr A Maginness:
You are being very fair.
Mr McNarry:
The names were highlighted for me so that I would not miss anyone out. I thought that that point was worth making to the Committee. Northern Ireland MPs, along with a host of other MPs, have a commendable record in trying to introduce such legislation. I am now bringing the means to do it, but I do not claim that the legislation is something new.
Overlapping benefits and the question of parity were mentioned. The rule that was mentioned on overlapping benefits is nothing short of a self-imposed departmental rule. It is shared throughout various United Kingdom social security departmental divisions, including the one in Northern Ireland. It is entirely based on our own social security policy division — perhaps the Minister is unaware of it — and that division’s adoption of a self-serving notion about overlapping benefits. The rule is not written in tablets of stone, nor is the matter of parity.
Parity legislation is dealt with by section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It does not require or even suggest that absolute parity must be maintained in the designated areas of social security, child support and pensions. The legislation requires that the relevant Ministers in Belfast and Whitehall consult one another from time to time. I have introduced to you the level of consultation that the Minister for Social Development seems to be involved in. The Minister told me that she will consult from Monday 28 April, which is one week before the Second Stage of my Bill is due to come before the Assembly. What is the Minister bringing to the table? It appears that she is consulting only after striving to kill the Bill.
I hope that members are clear about what the House faces as a result of the appalling step that the Minister has taken to introduce a reasoned amendment on Tuesday 6 May. In the past, Members have used that step, although my information tells me that it has never been used in Northern Ireland, nor during the 10 years of the Scottish Parliament. In Westminster, it is only used — and even then, rarely — by the Opposition. The precedent of a Minister using that measure is totally unheard of. I ask the Committee to consider why the Minister is taking that step. I am struggling with that, and I am pretty gutted about the intentions of the Minister. Perhaps you might have some influence.
The Minister could launch her own review. She could prepare a submission for next year’s process. However, she intends to stop the Bill next Tuesday, but she could let the Committee get its teeth into the Bill. I would welcome that, but her intended action next Tuesday will kill it.
The Minister could do all that by withdrawing her reasoned amendment. Her challenge is to deny individual Members their right to vote freely next Tuesday. I cannot speak for the Whips of other parties, so I will not speak for the Ulster Unionist Whips — even though I am the Chief Whip. However, if the Whips are put into operation, they will effectively be carrying out the Minister’s killing of the Bill, because there would not be a free vote — something for which I have argued.
I am at the end now, Chairperson — I am sure that you are glad to hear that. However, I advise you that I am preparing extensively for the debate on Tuesday. I hope that I will convince my colleagues to support the Bill, despite what the Minister for Social Development is attempting to do. That is the weight that is on my shoulders, but I will take this fight forward because I will not get a second chance.
The Chairperson:
Thank you, Mr McNarry. Do members have any questions?
Mr Brady:
Thank you for your presentation, Mr McNarry. If the Minister initiated a local review, I hope that she would take local variations into account, such as the number of carers and the levels of disability here. That should be translated into the review and how people here would be affected. Officials seem to be almost obsessed with the number of people in receipt of disability living allowance. However, that simply reflects the number of people here with disabilities.
Mr McNarry:
We have all been through this. The behaviour of officials is understandable because of the history of a high degree of cheating in some of those areas —
Mr Brady:
With respect, the figure for DLA fraudulent benefit is 0·03%. That is the lowest —
Mr McNarry:
The one word that you did not allow me to include was “perceived”. Carers are honest people. We get £3 billion from them on the cheap — they deserve better.
We should stand up for Northern Ireland plc. This is our Assembly. The Minister indicated to me on Monday that she is running, cap in hand, to London to talk to the Treasury. If one enters any kind of negotiations already beaten, or without any resolve, one is not going to come out with much.
I would have preferred the Minister to have taken the Bill on board and to have fought for it. She would have had the support of the Committee and the Assembly in doing so. We will not get everything that we argue for, but we need to start. Her attitude is not to fight. That comes across very clearly, because she wants to kill the Bill on Tuesday.
The Chairperson:
In your introductory comments, you referred to the press statement from the Department for Social Development. There was not, nor would I expect there to be, any indication of the Executive’s modus operandi in reaching their decision. I would not expect there to be anything in the press statement, although I have not actually seen it.
Mr McNarry:
“The Minister has discussed the Bill with her Executive colleagues.
The Executive believes that the Bill raises very significant issues including the financial implications and the principle of parity which underpins the current social security system.”
I understand that, and the Minister is part of the Executive. I am at a loss as to why the Executive would have taken such a momentous decision to back the action that she will take as a Minister — and I am all for corporate responsibilities and sharing of responsibility — but the Executive have not heard the case for the carers. I have yet to put the case, nevertheless the Executive have taken —
The Chairperson:
I understand that, and it is important. However, I, and the Committee, would like to know whether the Executive Committee reached that decision unanimously.
Mr McNarry:
That is a good question.
The Chairperson:
We need to establish that, and to establish the rationale for reaching that decision — if they reached it unanimously. We could then begin to dissect and examine the rationale behind that decision and how it was reached. At the moment, we do not have that.
Mr McNarry:
There may be something that we could contribute to that as a lesson, in that where a Minister has free rein to talk to his or her colleagues, there would be circumstances — and this is one — where the Executive might have invited me, or someone in my position, to tell them about the Bill before they would make any decision. They have been very rash in making their decision.
The Chairperson:
At the end of the departmental briefing paper, the words “unanimously agreed” are used in connection with the reasoned amendment approved by the Northern Ireland Executive.
Mr McNarry:
You have papers, and you have a briefing from the departmental witnesses who spoke before I did. I have not seen the briefing and would like to see it. I understand that the reasoned amendment has not yet been officially lodged with the Business Office.
The Chairperson:
I appreciate that you have not read the paper. The wording is:
“At last Thursday’s meeting of the NI Executive, the text of the following reasoned amendment to David McNarry’s Carer’s Allowance Bill was unanimously agreed as follows:”.
The text of the reasoned amendment follows in italics
Mr McNarry:
Perhaps the Committee wants to delve into party politics, which I do not. I have had a discussion with my party leader. He is aware of my feelings, and I am aware of whatever action he is taking. Let us say that we beg to differ.
The Chairperson:
Mr McNarry has asked the Committee to try to establish a breakdown of the £38·6 million, which is a comparatively recent figure that we have received from the Department. That is a fair and reasonable request, which I assume — unless members express views to the contrary — we will accede to and see if it can be established. Provided that we receive that breakdown from the Department, and it does not have any difficulty in that information being passed on to Mr McNarry — which I do not expect that it will — we will endeavour to do that. The Committee will then have to decide on its position in relation to that, given that the business is scheduled for Tuesday 6 May.
Thank you very much, Mr McNarry, for attending.
Mr McNarry:
I am much obliged.
The Chairperson:
Members have heard the outcome of the departmental officials’ and Mr McNarry’s evidence. We need to get that information quickly — Monday 5 May being a bank holiday — and we will then give it to Mr McNarry. In the normal course of events, I, as Chairperson, would be expected to speak to the motion on Tuesday. The Committee must decide what, in general terms, it would like the Chairperson to say. Are members content that we write to the Department to try to get that information?
Members indicated assent.
Mr Cobain:
I know that David is emotionally attached to the Carer’s Allowance Bill, but I support parity, and there will be grave difficulties for us if we move away from that situation.
We go to London, cap in hand, now and again. People from the rest of the United Kingdom make a significant contribution to this place. Many of the things that people want to do could not be done without help and support from central Government. I have always supported parity, because, ultimately, it is best for us.
The Chairperson:
Mr McNarry was clear: there will be two ways of getting the £38·6 million — or whatever the amount might be. We will get additional moneys from the Exchequer through some mechanism that no one has yet devised or explained or — as was discussed earlier — we must ensure that the Minister endeavours to get £38·6 million, or thereabouts, from elsewhere. That will mean dividing the cake differently to how we had thought it would be done.
Mr Cobain:
I am not worried about the money; I am more concerned about moving away from the principle of parity. It would not make any difference to me if it was £50 or £50 million that we were talking about; the money is not the issue. Once the parity rule is broken, do we go ahead and face the consequences? This is a two-way street.
The Chairperson:
Members should be aware of that. I have a form of words that, I hope, will meet with the Committee’s approval.
Mr Craig:
I agree with Mr Cobain. I have difficulties with moving away from the principle of parity; it might open a can of worms. However, we have the ability to do it — in some respects. The Executive opposed the Bill unanimously, so we will have great difficulty in changing their minds. Perhaps we should ask the Minister to implement a review into the way in which carers are supported and give the Minister an opportunity to come up with some counter-proposals that the Executive could implement in the future.
Mr A Maginness:
I have asked whether the parity principle is a legal or a political position. I am not certain of its position. I think that there is some element of law and a big element of politics associated with it. We cannot breach the parity principle on the Carer’s Allowance Bill. It would be difficult. The consequences of such a breach would be disproportionate to the ill that we are trying to remedy.
The consequence is not merely a matter of money; it is also about how the British Treasury would react to us saying that we will go our own way on this issue. The Treasury might tell us that we can do likewise in other areas. We must consider the difficulty regarding our relationship with the British Treasury.
I am also concerned about the knock-on effect that the change might have on some people who benefit from pension credit and/or housing benefit. That has serious implications, and we cannot merely magic it away.
We might have a solution if Mr McNarry withdrew his Bill and awaited the results of the review that is taking place in Britain — and any action that the Department for Social Development might deem fit to take in relation to this difficult issue.
The Chairperson:
My thoughts are somewhere along those lines.
Mr A Maginness:
There is enormous sympathy for Mr McNarry.
Ms Lo:
The Alliance Party is concerned about the breach of parity. Although we understand that carers contribute greatly to society, the Assembly should, perhaps, consider giving carers enhanced practical support rather than benefits. For example, it is in our gift to assign volunteers or increase respite care arrangements to ensure better practical help.
Mr Brady:
Jonathan’s point is valid; if the Minister has not already made a submission to the review, it might be difficult to make any impact in such a short time. As Mr McNarry said, the Minister will meet everybody and seek input from carers. It will be difficult to achieve a balanced return within a reasonable timescale. A local review would be helpful, but the Assembly must send an appropriate message to carers. Carers are not particularly interested in the logistics of the legislation and what impact it will have on them. They want reassurance that the Assembly will support them.
In many ways, that is related to the interviews for partners issue that was raised earlier. We must examine the care infrastructure and determine how best to help carers with issues such as respite, and so on. I want the Bill to introduce a stand-alone benefit that will help the greatest number of people. It is still worthwhile to help only a small number of people. We will always have to consider parity, and there will not necessarily be a domino effect. The role of carers is an emotive issue that affects many people, and it is a good issue on which to hang something such as this. There are not many other income support or benefits issues that will impact as much as this legislation.
Mr F McCann:
When David McNarry first introduced the Bill to the Committee, we wished him fair wind in his endeavours and intentions. As outlined on the radio this morning, several elements, such as cost, have emerged; a number of figures were mentioned. Mickey hit the nail on the head: the feelings of carers and their perception of the Assembly’s attitude to, and support for, their situation must be handled carefully.
Alban suggested that the Committee asks David to withdraw the Bill, writes to the Minister — and the Executive if necessary — to outline that the Committee is concerned that carers might perceive that we do not support their fight for better pay and greater recognition. Making a decision on the grounds of parity maintains the status quo rather than considers carers’ feelings.
The Chairperson:
As has been the case from the outset, the Committee is, generally, supportive of the thrust of the Bill’s intentions and the people whom it aims to benefit.
However, there are several difficulties, such as parity and cost, and their consequences. If we simply asked Mr McNarry to withdraw the Bill, although I have not raised the matter with him, I presume that he would want to know what we are doing that would enable him to withdraw it. Without knowing the consequences of withdrawing the Bill, he would not simply do that.
Although various people have placed a different emphasis on the UK-wide review of care strategy, it has almost reached a conclusion, and, privately, the Minister has indicated to Mr McNarry that she will make representations to several bodies about its findings. If we told the Minister of our continued support for the Bill’s underlying ethos, and, depending on the review’s outcome, the Minister agreed to examine that outcome closely in order to determine whether there is anything in it that she could apply to benefit the people in Northern Ireland whom Mr McNarry’s Bill seeks to benefit, that might be sufficient for Mr McNarry.
Nevertheless, on the basis that the Bill proceeds next Tuesday, the Committee must take a decision and respond, or, if the Bill is withdrawn, I presume that Mr McNarry would want to hear something about what we are likely to do.
The Committee Clerk:
Rather than withdrawing the Bill, another option might be to ask Mr McNarry not to move it. In effect, that would freeze rather than kill the Bill.
The Chairperson:
Even if we were to do that, he would still want what I outlined. How do members feel about that?
Mr F McCann:
Mickey Brady and several other people mentioned statistics that might allow an argument to be put to the Exchequer. We should take up the carers’ case and bring it to wherever it goes in order to change people’s minds, and let us presuppose that the review will come out against additional funding.
Mr Cobain:
The Chairperson is right; David will not withdraw the Bill unless additional options are offered for the people whom he represents. The Minister should announce an in-depth review of issues relating to carers, and we could undertake practical measures that do not require legislation, such as addressing respite care issues and working with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to provide additional resources. I would have no problem supporting such actions; however, in order to help the people whom we are attempting to help, we must do something practical. The Minister should conduct a review and champion the provision of additional resources to address carers’ needs. Respite care is a huge issue for carers.
Mr Brady:
Given the Executive’s unanimous decision about the reasoned amendment and the fact that the review was mentioned, was the Executive informed that the Department had no input into that review?
The Chairperson:
Obviously, we are not aware of that; however, along with any other queries to the Executive, that would be worth exploring. We will relay that to Mr McNarry, who will then have a couple of options: he could either not move the Bill, which would mean that it would be frozen until he sees the outcome of the UK-wide review, or he could withdraw his motion.
Ms Lo:
Are we going to write to him?
The Chairperson:
After we get a response, we will relay that information to him.
The Committee Clerk:
We will probably not have to write to anyone, because we will be able to tell Mr McNarry, in a roundabout way, what the Chairperson will say.
The Chairperson:
Remember, we have only one working day — which is quite short notice — to establish that course of action. Are members content with that general approach?
Members indicated assent.