| Homepage > The Work of the Assembly > Committees > Social Development > Reports | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ms Janis Creane |
Department for Social Development |
|
Mr David McNarry |
Member of the Legislative Assembly |
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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?
49. 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.
50. The Chairperson: Are we effectively saying that the funding would have to come from some other pockets?
51. 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.
52. 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?
53. 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.
54. The Chairperson: Nevertheless, the £38·6 million does not take account of any additional numbers.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. Mr J O'Neill: We have the highest rate of DLA take-up in the UK.
59. Mr Brady: We also have the highest number of people with disabilities.
60. 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.
61. Mr Brady: We live in a very unhealthy place.
62. 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.
63. The Chairperson: When do you expect that review to be completed?
64. Mr J O'Neill: The review is scheduled to be published in early June.
65. 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.
66. Ms Lo: What affect would breaching parity on that issue have on the computer system? I remember that you mentioned that issue previously.
67. 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.
68. Ms Lo: I remember that you said that we may be required to set up our own computer system.
69. 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.
70. Ms Lo: Would that be costly?
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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?
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. 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?
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. 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.
89. Mr J O'Neill: Yes, it could.
90. 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?
91. Mr J O'Neill: We said that 7,500 would see a reduction in the amount paid, and 2,400 —
92. Mr Cobain: It is confusing. Where would the reductions appear? Would they receive fewer benefits?
93. Ms Janice Creane (Department for Social Development): Their pension credit would be reduced, because they are receiving an amount of carer's allowance.
94. Mr Cobain: Will the reduction in the pension credit equate to the increase —
95. The Chairperson: Is the £38·6 million a net figure?
96. 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.
97. Mr Cobain: They would not be financially worse off.
98. 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.
99. Mr Cobain: Would they get more money?
100. Mr G McCann: They would lose their entitlement.
101. Mr J O'Neill: They would not be passported to full housing benefit.
102. Mr Cobain: Some older people own their own homes, so they do not claim housing benefit.
103. Mr J O'Neill: They would have access to rate rebate or the new rate scheme.
104. 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.
105. 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.
106. 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.
107. Ms Creane: But the 7,500 would not be better off. That would be reclaimed from pension credit, which is not included in the —
108. Mr Cobain: Although the 7,000 would not be any worse off.
109. Ms Creane: No, they would not.
110. Mr G McCann: At the end of the day, they are not better off.
111. The Chairperson: I understand that the 7,500 would not be any worse off —
112. Ms Creane: They are included in the 14,000.
113. 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?
114. Ms Creane: That is correct.
115. The Chairperson: We have taken care of the figure of 7,500. We understand that.
116. 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?
117. Mr J O'Neill: No — 14,700 is the total number of current carer's allowance claimants.
118. Ms Creane: That includes the 7,500.
119. Mr G McCann: That figure of 7,500 is part of the total number —
120. Mr Cobain: That is misleading. Are we referring to the 14,000?
121. Mr J O'Neill: Yes — once you start to take the figures apart.
122. Mr Cobain: So 14,000 is the total?
123. 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.
124. Mr Cobain: So are we talking about 4,000? Are we are not talking about 14,000?
125. The Chairperson: Is everybody clear now? I am not.
126. Mr J O'Neill: We are clear.
127. 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.
128. 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.
129. 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.
130. Ms Creane: That is correct.
131. Mr G McCann: That is a fact — 14,000 people are not receiving carer's allowance because it happens to overlap.
132. 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.
133. Ms Creane: The 4,000 who claim carer's allowance but do not claim pension credit would benefit.
134. Mr Cobain: That is the point that I am trying to make.
135. Mr G McCann: Approximately 4,000 people would end up with more money in their pockets.
136. 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.
137. 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.
138. Mr J O'Neill: DLA benefits are paid to help people with the effect of disability on their lives.
139. 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.
140. Mr J O'Neill: The trusts are not involved with DLA benefits.
141. 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.
142. 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.
143. 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.
144. Mr J O'Neill: They may be doing so, but that is not something that we can deal with under social security law.
145. Mr Brady: If Government took a joined-up approach, you might actually be able to do something about it. [Laughter.]
146. 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.
147. 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.
148. 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.
149. Mr Brady: If the carer's allowance is intended as income replacement, it should be a stand-alone benefit.
150. 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.
151. Mr Brady: That is not impossible; it is aspirational, but it is not impossible.
152. 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.
153. Mr Brady: They would spend £1·5 billion on many other things that most people would regard as superfluous.
154. Mr J O'Neill: I am only concerned with social security expenditure in this instance, fortunately.
155. The Chairperson: Everyone who indicated that they wanted to speak has had a chance to do so. Thank you for attending today's meeting.
156. 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.
157. 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.
158. 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.
159. 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.
160. 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."
161. 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.
162. 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.
163. I noticed the look of surprise on members' faces when they heard that the enactment of the Bill would cost the Department £36 million.
164. The Chairperson: It is £38 million.
165. 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.
166. 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.
167. 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.
168. 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."
169. 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.
170. The Chairperson: Are those all the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament who signed the early-day motion?
171. Mr McNarry: Those are all the names that are on my list. I can give you that list if you wish.
172. The Chairperson: I did not want to leave anyone out who may have signed it.
173. Mr A Maginness: You are being very fair.
174. 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.
175. 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.
176. 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.
177. 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.
178. 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.
179. 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.
180. 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.
181. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr McNarry. Do members have any questions?
182. 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.
183. 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 —
184. Mr Brady: With respect, the figure for DLA fraudulent benefit is 0·03%. That is the lowest —
185. 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.
186. 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.
187. 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.
188. 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.
189. 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."
190. 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 —
191. 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.
192. Mr McNarry: That is a good question.
193. 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.
194. 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.
195. 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.
196. 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.
197. 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:".
198. The text of the reasoned amendment follows in italics
199. 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.
200. 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.
201. Thank you very much, Mr McNarry, for attending.
202. Mr McNarry: I am much obliged.
203. 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.
204. 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.
205. 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.
206. 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.
207. 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.
208. The Chairperson: Members should be aware of that. I have a form of words that, I hope, will meet with the Committee's approval.
209. 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.
210. 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.
211. 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.
212. 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.
213. 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.
214. The Chairperson: My thoughts are somewhere along those lines.
215. Mr A Maginness: There is enormous sympathy for Mr McNarry.
216. 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.
217. 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.
218. 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.
219. 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.
220. 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.
221. 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.
222. 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.
223. 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.
224. 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.
225. 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.
226. The Chairperson: Even if we were to do that, he would still want what I outlined. How do members feel about that?
227. 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.
228. 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.
229. 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?
230. 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.
231. Ms Lo: Are we going to write to him?
232. The Chairperson: After we get a response, we will relay that information to him.
233. 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.
234. 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.
3 February 2011
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Witnesses:
Ms Janis Creane |
Department for Social Development |
235. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): We will now hear a briefing from the Department on the Carer's Allowance Bill. The Second Stage of the Bill is scheduled for Tuesday 8 February. Members have a copy of the Committee Clerk's note on the Bill, the Bill itself and the Department's briefing note of May 2008. Joining us are Gerry McCann and Janis Creane from the social security policy and legislation division. You are very welcome. I remind you to switch off your mobile phones, as the session is being recorded for the Hansard report.
236. The Bill is something that has been around for a while and has suddenly been revived. I hope that there was not too much of a hint of cynicism in that comment. I invite you to give us a briefing on the Bill, and I am sure that members will have questions.
237. Ms Janis Creane (Department for Social Development): At the outset, I should point out that officials in the Department and, indeed, the Minister are empathetic with the aspirations behind the Carer's Allowance Bill and the desire to help carers. We all acknowledge that a massive amount of work is done by those who have the responsibility of caring for others and their contribution to society cannot be understated. I am sure that, at some stage, many of us have had a family member who has either needed a carer or been a carer; some of us may even have undertaken the role of carer ourselves.
238. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to give the Department's view on the implications of the Carer's Allowance Bill. Just a few members here were about in 2008 when the Bill was first introduced. Carer's allowance was introduced to provide a measure of financial support to a person who had given up the opportunity to work full time in order to provide care of at least 35 hours a week to a severely disabled person who is in receipt of either the highest or middle rate of disability living allowance (DLA) care component or in receipt of a tenant's allowance.
239. When a carer reaches pension age, at which basic state pension payment begins, carer's allowance is not usually payable due to the overlapping benefit rules. However, if someone receives less state pension than they would by way of the carer's allowance, an amount of carer's allowance can be paid to make up the difference. In addition, where carer's allowance cannot be paid because of the overlapping benefit rules, the person keeps an underlying entitlement to the benefit. That gives them access to the carer premium and the income-related benefits such as housing benefit or pension credit.
240. Although many benefit recipients can satisfy the eligibility criteria for several benefits at the same time, a fundamental principle of the social security system since its inception has been that there should not be double provision for the same purpose. Where two or more benefits are paid to cover the same purpose — for example, as income replacement — only the higher or highest of the benefits is payable. The argument behind that is that finite resources should be focused most effectively on the people who have the greatest financial pressure.
241. The overlapping benefit rules are not linked to age and do not apply solely to state pension and carer's allowance. A number of other income and maintenance benefits are affected by the rules; for example, contributory employment and support allowance, incapacity benefit, maternity allowance, contribution jobseeker's allowance and bereavement allowance, none of which can be paid at the same time as carer's allowance or each other.
242. The Carer's Allowance Bill seeks to prevent regulations providing for carer's allowance to be adjusted by reference to state pension, with the purpose of seeking to ensure that state pension and carer's allowance can both be paid in full at the same time. In other words, it is trying to abolish the overlapping benefits rule in relation to carer's allowance and state pension. That would make carer's allowance, in effect, a payment for performing the role of carer, rather than an income-replacement benefit.
243. In addition, the Bill poses very real problems, including significant cost implications and ramifications for the wider policy of parity in social security. Back in 2008, we advised the Committee that the estimated costs of the Bill were in the region of £38·6 million based on the figures and claim rates at that time. Based on the current figures and claim rates today, it is estimated that the Bill would generate additional gross expenditure of approximately £51·6 million. You can see that it has gone up massively in just a couple of years. That is not taking into account the number of people that we are not aware of who may claim if the overlapping benefit rules were done away with.
244. Due to the funding arrangements in place for social security, the additional costs would fall to the Northern Ireland block grant. The Committee is all too aware of the long-standing policy of parity with GB and the requirement to seek to maintain a single system of social security, which is provided for by section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, in some ways, section 88 of that Act is more significant, as it provides for the funding arrangements and the cross-subsidies on which we rely to fund social security in Northern Ireland. The Committee is well aware of the constraints of parity and the substantial funding that we receive from GB; over £3 billion in 2009-2010. The Committee knows that that funding is predicated on the maintenance of parity.
245. I briefly mentioned that carers who are over the pensionable age and are on low incomes can receive additional help from income-related benefits, such as pension credit and housing benefit, both of which are paid at higher rates for carers. The Bill appears to do nothing to help many poorer pensioner carers, because any increase in income resulting from them receiving their carer's allowance as well as their state pension would be taken off their pension credit. That could reduce or extinguish any pension credit or housing benefit payable to them.
246. Some poorer pensioners could end up slightly out of pocket as a result of the Bill's provisions, depending on their individual circumstances. There are approximately 13,400 carers who are over pension age and are in receipt of pension credit, and about 10,000 of them would see a reduction in the amount of pension credit paid to them and would be financially no better off.
247. The Chairperson: Sorry to cut across you, but that is 10,000 pensioners who —
248. Ms Creane: Would not be any better off financially.
249. The Chairperson: And may be worse off.
250. Mr Gerry McCann (Department for Social Development): Not necessarily all 10,000 of them. A smaller number could be worse off.
251. The Chairperson: So, 10,000 would not be better off as a result.
252. Ms Creane: Those who could be worse off would come from the other 3,000 or so who would no longer be entitled to pension credit. Again, not all of those people would necessarily be worse off, but some of them could be worse off in that they might see a very small amount of financial gain but would lose all of their passport benefits.
253. The Chairperson: We do not have those figures. This is coming up very quickly.
254. Mr G McCann: It is the same for us.
255. The Chairperson: Those figures will be recorded in the Hansard report, but if you could give us any figures that you have in advance of the Second Stage, that would be brilliant. I apologise again for cutting across you.
256. Ms Creane: That is no problem.
257. As a result of the Bill's provisions, some people would not be passported to full housing benefit, so they would not automatically get help with their dental costs and glasses costs or with fares to hospital, court fees and access to free school meals. It depends very much on the individual circumstances, but some of those 3,000 people could find themselves slightly worse off.
258. After the Bill was introduced in 2008, the Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, undertook a joint review of the support provisions for carers in 2009. That report was published in November 2009 and included a recommendation that the long-standing policy of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in social security be maintained. It also recommended that the Social Security Agency include an exercise in carer's allowance as part of its benefit-uptake programme.
259. Over 73,000 people have been contacted about potential entitlement to carer's allowance, which has resulted in over 1,100 new successful claims. As part of that activity, over 40,000 pensioners were targeted to improve the uptake of carer's allowance. Furthermore, the 2010-11 uptake programme includes an exercise that is aimed at 2,500 people who may be eligible for carer's allowance. The organisers of that are looking to the future of benefit uptake and of continuing to seek that the people who are entitled to carer's allowance take it up.
260. So, the Bill does pose some problems, not least the significant implications for the current funding regime and the lack of help to the poorer pensioner carers. However, the Minister is seeking the views of ministerial colleagues before reaching any decision on the final departmental position on the Bill. The Minister may also wish to have the benefit of the Committee's consideration of the Bill.
261. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Janis. You said at the start that the Department and the Minister are empathetic to the motives of the Bill's sponsor. I do not think that there is anyone around this table who is not equally empathetic to the needs of carers. I have been in post in this Committee for just under two years, and we have talked about carers on countless occasions. We have always stressed the great value that carers have in our society — unrecognised value in the contribution that they make and the estimated £3 billion of savings across the United Kingdom every year because of the care that they provide. There is nobody here who does not empathise or agree with the sentiments of it all. Empathy is one thing, but it does not pay the bills. You said that the Minister has yet to come to a position on it. That figure of £51·6 million is fairly astronomical. It has gone up quite considerably. Is that because of greater uptake?
262. Ms Creane: Yes; and the benefit rate has gone up as well. The uptake has gone up — around 3,700 more pensioners are claiming carer's allowance than was the case in 2008.
263. The Chairperson: We would find it helpful to get the information that we talked about, which lists how many people may be no better off or, indeed, worse off. You are right about the passporting to other benefits, either other social security benefits or, as you said, free school meals, transportation and so on.
264. Some of us have not said the word "parity" yet; now I have said it. That is an issue that would be of concern to a great many of us here. The Minister has talked about testing parity and taking it to its limit. Let us face it: this Bill would be a breach of parity. It is questionable whether this is an issue on which you would want to test or to break parity, given that its impact is not 100% positive. There are positives for some, but there are negatives for others. The sponsor of the Bill has spoken to me about it, and I know that he has a great concern for the issue of carers, brought to him through personal experience of constituents and so on. However, to quote what the Minister said in relation to another Bill: in trying to do good, we could well be doing a mischief. That is something that we are probably all concerned about.
265. Mr Brady: Thank you for your presentation. I have the greatest empathy with what Mr McNarry is trying to do, but it is interesting that he is such a staunch defender of parity. I think that this Bill would blow that out of the water in many ways.
266. The issue of carers has been contentious historically. Married women could not claim such a benefit until 1984. To me, the only way to deal properly with carer's allowance is to make it a stand-alone benefit, because it is inextricably linked to DLA benefits. Those are stand-alone benefits; they are not means-tested. We are talking about astronomical figures, but set that against the fact that carers save the British Government here £3 billion a year. That maybe puts it into context.
267. There are other ways of looking at it as well. A carer who works is allowed to earn up to £95 a week, but if they are paid 1p above that, they lose their complete entitlement. The benefit that was in place before carer's allowance had a sliding scale, and issues such as travel and work clothes were brought in as expenses. I think that the way in which that has been done has been very unfair. A carer has to be looking after the disabled person for at least 35 hours a week to get £53·90. That works out at £1·54 an hour, approximately a quarter of the minimum wage. There are huge issues to be addressed there.
268. Mr McNarry's Bill appears to be aimed at pensioners. You made the point that up to 10,000 pensioners could be disenfranchised by not getting any more benefit and, in some cases, getting less. That is an issue. There are other ways of addressing it. God forbid that parity should be broken; I keep looking round in case I am struck by a thunderbolt for even mentioning it.
269. Mr Easton: Or a caravan.
270. Mr Brady: If parity is going to be broken, I do not think that this is the ideal vehicle to do it.
271. The Chairperson: He is talking about caravans, and you are talking about vehicles. You are encouraging him.
272. Mr Brady: I am sure that Alex will excuse the pun. The issue of how carer's allowance could be made a stand-alone benefit needs to be looked at. As the Assembly continues, I am sure that the whole issue around parity can be looked at. You mentioned pension credit. Underlying entitlement is a relatively recent development; it has been in for only a few years. Prior to its introduction, pensioners simply stopped getting any entitlement. The uptake of pension credit should be promoted, because almost £2 million a week in pension credit is not claimed. If we want to encourage pensioners to have a better quality of life by maximising their benefit, that is an area that could be tackled.
273. Carer's allowance is probably a more contentious type of benefit to deal with, but there are other ways of dealing with it, as I said. If people were allowed to earn more or if there was a sliding scale depending on earnings, people who are not on benefits would be encouraged to claim. That would mean that there would be less of a drain on the block grant. There are other ways around it. I have the greatest sympathy for what Mr McNarry is trying to do, but I am not sure that this is the best vehicle to do it with.
274. The Chairperson: Members may express views rather than ask questions. Does anyone else wish to comment?
275. I know the answer to this, but I presume that there is no budget cover for a £50 million cost. Is there?
276. Ms Creane: No.
277. Mr G McCann: As you know, the budget is very tight. I very much doubt whether any Department would be able to come up with £51 million.
278. The Chairperson: Members, is it fair to say that we are supportive of some of the reforms that Mickey spoke about? In the current mandate, the Assembly has done something positive for carers. The Finance Minister altered the rules on relief for carers in the rates system. It was a modest benefit, but it is one that we could control without any risk.
279. Mr Brady: Our briefing note states that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP):
"has modified its welfare reform programme so as not to make carers liable to sanctions if they do not engage in back to work activity. Carers are to remain on Income Support until there is a 'clear and detailed plan setting out how to reform the benefits system over the longer term.'"
280. It is obvious that carers will be targeted there as well. That is even more reason to give protection to carers. The so-called reforms are sanction-led. Undoubtedly, as things roll out, carers will eventually be roped into that. That is a worrying concept, and it will happen. There is no doubt that they intend to make it happen eventually. Carers are in their sights. It may not happen immediately, but it will happen.
281. The Chairperson: Is it fair to say that we support reform and greater recognition for carers? Furthermore, is it fair to say that the Committee is not convinced that the Bill is the best way in which to achieve the aims that we all share and that we are concerned about the potential negatives within it? Not only do we not have the money to pay it, but there could be negative consequences for some of the people whom the Bill would be trying to help.
282. Mr Brady: The Commissioner for Older People will be coming on stream, because the legislation was finalised last Tuesday. They can address areas such as pension credit and pensioner carers in a more formalised and practical way.
283. The Chairperson: Is that a fair summary of where we are? I think that I speak for everyone here when I say that no one is saying that the sentiments in the Bill are anything other than worthy, but they may have adverse consequences that are too much to contemplate. Is that a fair enough view?
Members indicated assent.
284. Mr Craig: We will not mention the parties franchised to —
285. The Chairperson: You will have plenty of opportunity next week to fill your boots on that one.
286. Mr Brady: David Freud was addressed at length on it yesterday.
287. The Chairperson: This discussion is disintegrating. Janis and Gerry, thank you for attending this morning's meeting. The information that we talked about would be very valuable, and it would be good if we could get it over the next day or so.
24 February 2011
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Witnesses:
Mr Sam Bell |
Carers Northern Ireland |
288. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): Joining us this morning are Helen Ferguson and Sam Bell from Carers NI; you are both very welcome. Can I issue you with the warning that I give to everybody about mobile phones? Today's proceedings are being recorded by Hansard, and the Hansard report will form part of our report on the Bill. I invite you to make a presentation, after which members will ask questions.
289. Ms Helen Ferguson (Carers Northern Ireland): I will start our presentation before handing over to Sam and then saying a few words in conclusion.
290. Our main point is that supporting older carers in Northern Ireland is already important and will become critically so. There will be a large increase in the elderly population in the coming years. Many of those elderly people will be fit and active and heavily involved in their communities; they will not be in need of constant support until the end of their lives. However, a large number of very old people will need increasing care. Increasingly, it will be other older people who will take on a significant role in supporting them, potentially at great risk to their own health and well-being. Therefore the Executive have a considerable challenge ahead in how they best support older carers. We are very pleased to see debate in the Committee for Social Development and in the Assembly in general about how our Assembly responds to that huge challenge.
291. The other point that I want to make, although I suppose that it is almost an aside, is that all the significant legislation for carers across the UK has come about through private Member's Bills. There is an honourable tradition behind Mr McNarry's Bill. There is also a history in the care movement of developments in one devolved Government influencing and changing practice in other devolved Governments.
292. Therefore the Bill could be a force for change, not just in Northern Ireland but beyond, although we must be realistic about the current climate and about how likely unilateral action by the Northern Ireland Assembly is to bring about the fundamental changes to carer's allowance that Carers NI wants.
293. Carer's allowance is fundamental to carers. It is the one benefit that is theirs; it is income over which they have control, and for many carers it is the only way in which the caring role that they take on is recognised. There are many problems with carer's allowance. For a start, it is far too low: at £53·90 a week — £1·54 if a carer does 35 hours a week — it is a pittance. It is, in many ways, a derisory benefit. If we were to seek one change in carer's allowance, it would be to increase it to about the level of the retirement pension.
294. It does not reflect the extra costs of caring for more than one person. Another problem with carer's allowance is that there is no earnings taper on it; once a carer reaches the earnings limit on carer's allowance, they lose the carer's allowance entirely. The most significant difference to the long-term financial situation of carers would be to keep them in employment where possible. A taper on the earnings limit of carer's allowance could help people to move in and out of part-time work more easily or take up a bit more work when their caring responsibilities allowed. That would make a huge difference to someone's ability to stay in touch with the world of work, which would reflect their finance now and their future pension. Being engaged with the world would also help their mental health and well-being, as carers often become very isolated, with all the impact that isolation has on people's mental health and well-being.
295. There are many problems with carer's allowance. However, if you asked carers the biggest change that they would like to see to carer's allowance, they would undoubtedly answer that they would change the overlapping benefits rule that means that when a carer reaches 60 or 65 years of age and gets their pension they lose their carer's allowance. They regard that as a great injustice. Sam can tell you more about how carers feel about the overlapping benefits rule.
296. Mr Sam Bell (Carers Northern Ireland): Good morning. Helen has put our case very succinctly; I do not know whether there is much that I can add. The most important point, as Helen pointed out, is that when a carer reaches retirement age, the allowance is withdrawn.
297. Helen said that the carer's allowance works out at £1·54 an hour. However, I made a few calculations: if a carer works 50 hours a week, as many do, it works out at £1·08 an hour. In fact, it works out as less than that as many carers care seven days a week, which works out at 32 pence an hour. There is no overtime or time and a half, and the work goes on and on. Carers get £53 no matter what hours they work.
298. If someone has a career, they get a pension when they retire. A carer — which is just one e short of "career" — does not retire from caring; however, when they reach retirement age, the allowance is withdrawn. Apart from the financial aspect, psychologically it is detrimental to have that allowance withdrawn as carers feel that their caring work counts for nothing, certainly after retirement age. Carers NI has produced booklets, including 'Carers Stories', that show that some carers are quite elderly.
299. Some years ago, my father, who was 91 and registered blind, was caring for my mum, who had dementia.
300. Ms Ferguson: Sam's father is one of about 350 people, according to the last Northern Ireland census, aged over 85 who were caring for more than 50 hours a week. That is a huge commitment, and they need support to make sure that their own health and well-being are not damaged by the role that they are taking on.
301. Sam mentioned the psychological impact on carers of the loss of the allowance, and there is a debate to be had on that issue. I am sure that the Department for Social Development will argue that the benefits system is not the place to recognise contribution; it is for covering people's living expenses. The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee did some interesting work and took the view that it was proper for the benefits system to consider some recognition of the extra costs of caring, its impact and the need for carers to find respite from their caring responsibilities. The Work and Pensions Committee's proposal was for a two-tier system so that an element of carer's allowance would be paid in the current way as an earnings replacement benefit. However, there would be an additional allowance that would not overlap with other earnings replacement benefits and which would recognise the extra costs of caring and its impact on carers. The Work and Pensions Committee recommended that the additional allowance should be set at about the level of child benefit.
302. Models do exist, and there is at least an argument that the benefits system can and should consider some of the impact that caring has. We should not dismiss DSD as an appropriate agency for addressing some of those issues.
303. However, the biggest issue for the Committee and for Carers NI is the impact of departing from parity in benefits, as it is hard to predict what that impact might be. We know that, in the short term, the Treasury will not supply DSD with more money to cover the additional cost, so the money would have to be found in the Northern Ireland block grant. The anxiety is that there may be longer-term implications, and, just as the small print in commercial advertisements warns us that the value of our investments may go down as well as up, there is a risk that a precedent could be set in difficult financial times in future that might leave benefits in Northern Ireland vulnerable to being set at lower rather than higher levels.
304. If the Bill were to progress, Carers NI would seek assurances that that is not a prospect that we would encounter as it would cause great anxiety. One of the attractions of the benefits system is that it provides universal access to people who meet the criteria. That offers some reassurance, and we would seek similar reassurances that carers would not be at risk of losing other elements of their benefits if the variations were made.
305. The fundamental question is about the money that the Bill would cost the Executive budget. Fortunately, I am not a politician, so I do not have to make that decision; it is for you to make. My main concern is that it is supposed to be policy in the Assembly and the Executive to invest in carers. However, we have seen very little investment. Four hundred thousand pounds of additional respite was released as a result of the carers' strategy, and recent changes will bring more very low-income carers into rate relief, and that has been very valuable.
306. We would like to see a great deal more investment that recognises the contribution that carers make through their unpaid work, and we would like the Executive to take into account how they make that investment. If feasible, the Carer's Allowance Bill might be the most appropriate place to make that investment. However, other measures — for respite and practical services to back carers up, for example — are needed from the Assembly. That is a fine judgement, and one that the Executive would have to address fully before DSD made a decision on the Bill.
307. The Chairperson: I appreciate your perspectives, as they come from being a carer and from working with carers. You have given us a very fair summary of the predicament that the Committee, as well as the Executive and the Assembly, faces. After members have asked their questions, I want to return to a particular point.
308. Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you both for your presentation. Helen has partly answered my question, which was to do with breaking parity. Even without a full debate on the issue, I sense that that will be the sticking point. I imagine that every Member has had experience of carers, either directly or through their constituency work. It is an issue that people raise consistently, and fair play to David McNarry for bringing the Bill forward.
309. Ms Ferguson: Absolutely.
310. Ms Ní Chuilín: However, as I say, the sticking point will be breaking parity. Without getting political about the issue, the Work and Pensions Committee considered a two-tier system and recommended that the carer's allowance be on the same level as child benefit. Have you made any costings of what that might involve here? The Bill primarily concerns the carer's allowance and is therefore not related to child benefit. However, I deal with children who are carers, and I am concerned that there are 15- and 16-year-olds who are not considering finishing their education or looking for employment. There are elderly people looking after older relatives and people in their 40s being looked after by children.
311. What will the two-tiered system and the tapered benefit, as you describe it, cost the Executive?
312. Ms Ferguson: I do not have the figures. The Work and Pensions Committee worked out rough costings for the UK, but I do not have the figures for Northern Ireland. It would have to be part of a fundamental change to the whole carers' benefits system. Northern Ireland could not introduce it off its own bat; it would have to be part of a thoroughgoing review of carers' benefits.
313. We have been promised a review through what has been described as a national carers' strategy, although it is primarily an English one. The review may still come, although we do not know when. However, introducing a two-tier system could not be done in Northern Ireland alone; it would have to be part of a broader review.
314. I apologise to the Committee: I should have said that the Executive have made significant investment in a Northern Ireland-wide programme to provide emotional and practical support, including respite and breaks, to young carers. That is very important. However, you mentioned a key issue: the longer you care, the worse off you are. Young carers may face many years of caring, and the parents of children with disabilities will face a lifetime of caring; they have few opportunities to work or to improve their financial situation. Therefore decisions about benefits are critical for them, as they have no other options for increasing their family income.
315. You are also right to flag up that any decision made now about how we support our older generation will have exponential implications as the number of older people increases over the next five, 10, 15 or 50 years. Therefore, a longer-term calculation will have to be part of the decision-making process. However, I do not have those figures.
316. Ms Ní Chuilín: Maybe it would be helpful to get the Department to make a presentation to you? Thank you.
317. Ms Lo: As usual, Helen, you are a great advocate for carers. I do not know whether you listened to the debate in the House. Everyone who spoke paid tribute to carers; there was a lot of sympathy for them, and the value of their contribution to society was recognised. For a lot of carers, it is not just about money. Indeed, they do not do it for money; obviously, they do it because they love their family member and want to look after them. However, a lot of carers find the lack of respite care and other practical help to be really difficult. You talked about a form of top-up payment for respite care. Perhaps, if we cannot bring about statutory respite care, we can get social services to recognise that respite is needed and pay them an allowance to buy it in. Would that be a way around it?
318. Ms Ferguson: It might be. For example, in the South of Ireland, the benefits system is very different, in that the main carer's benefit is means-tested. In that way, our carer's allowance is ahead of the Southern provisions, because a means-tested system inevitably presents obstacles to people taking up a benefit. Nevertheless, other elements of the system there may be worth considering. First, if you care for more than one person, it is possible to get a half amount of carer's benefit on top of your existing benefit. Secondly, there is more benefit phasing at the end of caring or in transition, so that people can get back into work more easily or try to balance paid work or education with their caring. Thirdly, for up to a year, a specific and higher level of benefit is available for people who have had to give up a paid job in order to care. It is closer to an earnings replacement benefit.
319. Fourthly, a respite payment is made to all carers who qualify for carer's benefit so that they can arrange and purchase their own breaks. I have to say that that benefit comes from a government structure that does not supply the same level of respite and support that we supply directly through our health and social services trusts. It is not an add-on to a good health and social services structure; it is a replacement for an almost non-existent structure. Therefore, I do not think that paying a large lump sum through the benefits system is the way forward. However, a small payment might enable people to get out to play darts or to get their hair done. Small things like that keep people plugged in to their community and social networks, enabling them to be productive and active in those networks, which is beneficial not just to the carers but to the wider community.
320. Mr Brady: Thank you very much for the presentation. In talking about carers, we have all expressed sympathy. However, the reality is that lip-service is paid to the plight of carers, and there is no point in saying otherwise. In my view, to reform carers' benefits, carer's allowance has to be a stand-alone benefit, and it should have been from day one, because it is inextricably linked to attendance allowance and disability living allowance (DLA), so there is no question that it should not have been.
321. I would like to hear your views on income replacement as well. From day one, on invalid care allowance you could earn £12 a week — ridiculous. Now, 20 years later, it has gone up to £95. As you said, there is no tapering. If you go 1p over, you lose the lot. Consider the history of invalid care allowance: in the Drake case of 1984, Mrs Drake had to go to the European Court to ensure that married women got that allowance. Married women, whatever their age, were the bulk of carers at that time — I am sure that they still are, to a large extent. Carál mentioned young carers, and there are lots of them around.
322. If you are going to break parity or change parity, the argument should be that it is a stand-alone benefit. I have discussed this with David McNarry. While I have great sympathy and admiration for what he is trying to do, I do not think that that is the best vehicle. For a lot of older carers, it might make no difference, but it could still affect about 3,000 who would lose income. There are all sorts of other issues around older carers, such as the lack of uptake of pension credit.
323. The other thing as regards older carers is the advent of the Commissioner for Older People. Maybe this is something that the commissioner could take on board. It is a huge issue. I know people in their 80s who are caring for older partners. I had one case of an 86-year-old man looking after his wife, who was 89. He was blind. Night-care services were reduced from five nights a week to two, and he was getting up in the middle of the night and changing his wife, who was doubly incontinent. That is the kind of thing that carers are facing.
324. The change in lifelong learning, with older people being charged fees, is also relevant. I remember going to a meeting at the Southern Regional College two years ago. A lot of the older people there were carers, and going to night classes was a kind of respite for them. However, they could not afford it any more because the fees had gone up. Equality legislation had been introduced that had had an almost negative impact on them. There are a lot of issues around that. If you are going to break parity, which is what we are really talking about, it needs to be done as a stand-alone benefit that encompasses all groups of carers, as well as older carers.
325. Ms Ferguson: It is interesting that you refer to the history of the carer's allowance. It used to be known as the invalid care allowance. That just underlines the point in our briefing paper that it is a benefit that was designed for a world that we no longer live in. It is no longer fit for purpose. I agree with you that a complete review of carer's allowance as a stand-alone benefit would be —
326. Mr Brady: About 12 years ago, when I worked in the voluntary sector in Belfast, I attended a conference. I think that Keith Vaz was the junior Minister involved. There was to be a Royal Commission on the whole issue about carers. I have never heard anything since. That was 12 years ago. There was a lot of debate around the whole issue of carers, and that was supposed to resolve it to some degree. It never happened. You have this cyclical kind of thing. The awareness is raised, and then it dies down again. This is an opportunity for the Assembly to actually do something for carers.
327. Ms Ferguson: We would welcome that. David McNarry's position is that widespread support for carers has been expressed on many occasions in the Chamber and in Committees. Maybe it is time to put your money where your mouth is, as an Executive and an Assembly, and actually do something.
328. Mr Brady: It is a question of picking the right vehicle to progress it. It has to be the right vehicle, because if we go with a Bill that does not have a chance of success, that is going to have a negative effect, obviously. If we go with one that people on the Executive can buy into, it makes more sense.
329. Ms Ferguson: There is no point in tinkering, because there will not be an opportunity to come back and improve on it. We need to make sure that any Bill, or any action that we take, is as close to the ideal situation as possible. We will not be able to come back and amend it.
330. Mr Brady: The figures that you quote there — £250 million, and that is only for carers over 60 —
331. Ms Ferguson: That is only carers over 60, and that —
332. Mr Brady: I think that it is probably about £2 billion to £3 billion.
333. Ms Ferguson: And that is costed by looking at care assistant and care attendant rates. We know that many carers are taking on nursing tasks or physiotherapy tasks — much more complex tasks. That figure is purely looking at it on a plain personal care rate.
334. Mrs M Bradley: Thank you for your presentation. We should take our time and get this right. You are right that it will be a one-off situation. I do not think that there is anyone around the table who does not value carers, whether they are older carers or younger carers. Younger carers are suffering as well.
335. Carers are getting younger. I know of a situation in which a 15-year-old boy cares for his mummy. She is a single parent, but that boy has two brothers. Young carers often have responsibility not only for the adult they are caring for but for the remainder of the family, who also need care. That 15-year-old sees the other two boys out to school in the morning and sees to his mummy. A next-door neighbour comes in at 9.30 am to allow the boy to go to school himself. The school has given him relief to come in at whatever time he can. If it were not for the next-door neighbour, that young boy would probably not be able to get out to school in the mornings. The boy's aunt comes in from outside the city to look after his mummy from 12.00 noon until he comes home from school.
336. Carers face terrible pressure. A value cannot be placed on the work that they do. I would like something to be done, but it must be something very positive.
337. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mary. Adding further sympathy may sound a bit crass almost, but it is not sympathy for sympathy's sake. There is a real understanding. We may not be, or have been, carers ourselves. However, I have family members and friends who are carers. We have a real understanding of what is going on. We know that it is not purely about pounds, shillings and pence. It is about much more than that, which is why it was useful to tease out those issues today. It is not a purely DSD, social security, benefits or money issue. It is much, much bigger.
338. Helen, I agree with your point about fundamental change. I do not think that we, as an Assembly, are capable or competent enough to make that change, which really pushes the issue back to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). There are obviously health and other aspects, but DWP really needs to step up to the mark and live up to some of the promises that it has made. As useful as the Bill is in provoking a debate, its timing is unfortunate. We, as a Committee, will only be able to produce a partial body of evidence to hand over to our successor Committee and Assembly to look at. The Bill has no opportunity to pass in this term.
339. There are fundamental issues to be looked at, such as parity. We are seeking a meeting with DWP to address that issue. That meeting might be the single most useful evidence session in testing the issue and seeing where it can go. You are absolutely right that there is a cost involved. It relates to some of the unforeseen consequences that Mickey talked about. Approximately 18,000 pensioner carers would be affected. However, the figures that we get indicate that, because of the overlapping benefits rules, approximately 10,000 would be no better off and no worse off and that up to 3,000 could be worse off. Therefore, although we would like to do something, this Bill, as currently constructed, is not the best vehicle to improve the lot of carers.
340. I welcome the opportunity to poke at some of these issues. Hopefully, we will get evidence from DWP and sort out the parity issue. Costing is an issue of choice. If the discussion with DWP proves fruitful, the cost will be a choice for the Assembly. The question is whether this Bill is the right vehicle, given that it might negatively affect 3,000 carers, which is obviously not the consequence that you want.
341. Ms Ferguson: Absolutely not. We want to see the greatest impact on the greatest number. We certainly do not want a movement that takes some people forward but leaves others worse off.
342. The Chairperson: That takes us back to the point about fundamental change.
343. Helen and Sam, thank you very much for your time, your very useful evidence and the way in which you approached the session. Your evidence was very fair, balanced and rooted in the realities of the situation, which was very helpful.
344. Ms Ferguson: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to meet the Committee.
345. The Chairperson: Thank you very much.
10 March 2011
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Witnesses:
Mr Neil Couling |
Department for Work and Pensions |
346. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): Neil, you are very welcome. We are glad you could come, and that we could show you some of the scenery and sights of Northern Ireland while you are here. Not to build up your expectations or over-hype your appearance, but we have all been looking forward to it and are quite interested in what you have to say.
347. In considering the Carer's Allowance Bill, we are acutely aware of many issues, particularly the maintenance of parity. Perhaps you could make a few opening comments and then I will open the meeting to questions.
348. Mr Neil Couling (Department for Work and Pensions): I will not talk for too long, because I am sure that people will want to ask questions.
349. I will address two things, both related to parity. First, there are the overlapping benefit rules. People sometimes glaze over those and wonder why we have them. However, they are an essential part of the current social security system and have existed since Beveridge's time. They were invented to cover a series of income replacement benefits: pensions, for people who are too old to work; unemployment benefits, for people who are unemployed and cannot work; and incapacity benefits, soon to become employment support allowance, for people who are too sick to work. In the 1970s, carer's allowance was added to the group of reasons why people could not work. Beveridge recognised that such conditions could co-exist, but did not think that people should be paid three benefits just because they happened to fulfil three conditions. I noticed in the Hansard report of the debate on the Carer's Bill that quite a lot of reference was made to the fact that somebody does not stop caring just because they suddenly receive a pension. Quite obviously, they do not. However, the same thing could be argued for sickness; just because someone becomes 65, he or she does not stop having an incapacitating condition.
350. The rules and principles are important. When challenged in the courts about the rules, especially in Europe, having a clear set of principles underlying a benefits system means that one will be more successful in retaining the shape of that system and not have it pulled out of shape by legal judgements.
351. It is clearly for Northern Ireland to decide whether wants to keep the overlapping benefit rules. However, they are an integral part of the system, so I urge caution. If you get rid of one of those rules here, you would probably be getting rid of them across the system. What then would that mean for how your system works? That is something that legislators should bear in mind.
352. Secondly, I will turn quickly to parity, which I am sure is what you really want to talk to me about. For us, parity works through the movement of citizens within the United Kingdom. To have an efficient administration, we take decisions made in Northern Ireland to be effective in Great Britain. It also means that we can negotiate with other jurisdictions on behalf of the Northern Ireland social security system. So, there is a series of benefits to having a benefits system that is common across the United Kingdom.
353. Again, it is your choice. If you want to break parity, you are sovereign in that respect. However, there is a series of things you get now that would go if parity were broken, which may come out in cross-examination.
354. The Chairperson: Thank you. You have highlighted the nub of the issue, really: in wanting to talk to you, it was less about carers and their contribution to society. That contribution goes without saying. It is more about the effect of the Bill, and what the consequences of passing it would be. This Bill will not become law, but a similar one may come before the Assembly. I am glad that you are here. During my time on the Committee, DWP has been referred to as some kind of monolith sitting over in Whitehall; a sort of monster, almost.
355. Mr Couling: That is us.
356. The Chairperson: Yes; you are the friendly face of the monster. Whenever Anne McCleary or Gerry McCann from the Department for Social Development come before the Committee to discuss an issue, they always, and rightly, throw up the spectre of parity and whether a breach might happen. You said a couple of times that we have the choice, and that it is up to us to do whatever we want to do, but would legislating along these lines constitute a breach of parity? There is bound to be a range of consequences, the minimum being that we would have to fund any differences. What would the other consequences be?
357. Mr Couling: If the Bill were passed, you would open yourselves up to some risks. First, we effectively run your IT systems, and we charge you a very small fee, which is around 2·5% of any development costs. If you had to develop your own systems —
358. The Chairperson: It is along the lines of the Barnett scheme.
359. Mr Couling: Yes. We do that quite happily, and that 2·5% buys particular things that you need in Northern Ireland, because you have a different system of housing support, for example, and we try to adjust the systems for that. The second thing that you might not have spotted, and there is no reason why you should, is that the interaction with European law could be quite tricky.
360. I had our lawyers try to think through what would happen if you pass this Bill. Essentially, one could use treaty rights to open up the GB and Northern Ireland systems to extra costs. If I were a carer of pensionable age and you passed this Bill, I would be incentivised to move to Northern Ireland and claim the carer's allowance. I could then move to the Republic and invoke my treaty rights and take that with me back to Great Britain.
361. That sounds a bit fantastical in one sense, but I bet that if the two systems moved apart, people would explore the possibility of doing that. The free movement rules would mean that I would be quite within my rights to claim in Northern Ireland, move to the Republic for a short while, invoke my treaty rights there and then move back to Great Britain. Great Britain might then respond to Northern Ireland not just by saying that you have got to fund your costs in Northern Ireland, but that you have opened our system up to costs that we have not budgeted for, and we would like that to be paid for as well, thank you very much. [Laughter.] I am not saying that that is what we would do, but it is a risk to you. I think you should bear in mind the interaction with European law.
362. I asked Treasury officials whether they would like to come here or whether there was anything that they would like me to say about the financial risks. They gave the typical Treasury reply, which was that you would have to find money in the Northern Ireland Vote to fund any breach of parity. There are quite big risks involved in moving the two systems apart. As I said, Great Britain cannot mandate you to keep parity; you are sovereign in that respect. However, the advantages of it, and the protection that we give to external challenge, are there and are not to be underestimated.
363. The Chairperson: The Bill is pretty sizeable in the Northern Ireland context, but is not entirely insurmountable. If we really wanted to have this, we might be able to find the money somewhere. Obviously, there would be consequences for our expenditure; but have you looked at the issue and considered whether, if we passed the Bill, there would be a knock-on effect for other benefits? Would it have a domino effect into other aspects of the system, which would mean that we would have to change those or almost be in breach of equality?
364. Mr Couling: I think that it is more about people moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, which they do, and rights that go with them. One cannot invoke treaty rights if one moves within the United Kingdom. However, people moving to the Republic and then invoking treaty rights is a worry.
365. The intent of the Bill is clear and positive: it wants to give more help to older carers. However, a lot of the gain for poorer pensioners would be lost because of the way in which the Bill is configured. If I were advising Ministers on such a proposal, I would bring that to their attention.
366. It is probably unfashionable to say so, but the overlapping benefit rules work. If one bit of the rules is unpicked, there is the risk of the whole piece coming away. My advice is to keep the thing stitched together and find another way of helping carers. However, that is for you; not me.
367. Mr Brady: Thank you for your presentation. It was interesting that you mentioned Beveridge because he started things in 1942 and then the welfare system came in 1948. These are different times; and one could not have foreseen the changes that have come about. Ultimately, the concept of overlapping benefits is to save money. That, to me, is the priority.
368. The idea behind David McNarry's Bill is to help older people so that they can retain their pension and their carer's allowance. It is predicated on the argument that, in the North and in Britain, we have the meanest pension system in the developed world. One cannot get away from that. Pensioners here and in Britain are much worse off in respect of retirement pension than pensioners in many places.
369. You mentioned European law. Invalid care allowance has had problems historically. There was a case in 1984 in which a married woman could not claim it and had to take the British Government to the European Court. She won her case, but they changed the legislation almost as she was flying back. At that time, we were told that it would be a stand-alone benefit. Of course, it is still not a stand-alone benefit. I am also wondering about treaty rights and people hopping from the Six Counties into the South, etc. Would those people take the disabled person with them? Carer's allowance is predicated on the fact that someone is looking after a disabled person for a minimum of 35 hours a week. At the moment, the allowance it £53.90, so a person is getting £1.54 an hour, which is about a quarter of the minimum wage, and there are all sorts of connotations around that. However, if people are going to hop across Europe, what will happen to those they are caring for? How will the criteria for looking after someone fit into that scenario? You said that there could be an influx of people coming from Britain as carers and then moving to the South, but, presumably, they will still have to satisfy the carer's criteria. I honestly cannot see your argument being viable.
370. You talked about us having sovereignty in this matter but, ultimately, it is about the control of money. As you said, the Treasury is saying that we will have to pay for any breaches of parity. However, I am not sure whether any real costing has been carried out to establish how much breaching parity would cost. In the North, carers over the age of 60 save the government about £250 million a year, and that figure does not include carers of other ages. It is a huge amount of money.
371. The Treasury's stock answer seems to be that, if we breach parity, we will pay for it. However, there are different circumstances here. The argument that David McNarry has put forward is that there are higher rates of disability here. We have higher rates of deprivation. Indeed, Newry and Mourne, where we are today, has one of the highest incidences of multiple sclerosis in the world. There are inherent problems here that have not been addressed by the Treasury or anyone else. It is time that people started to look at the particular problems in this area, and seeing what can be done, rather than giving that stock answer. It is like the sword of Damocles hanging over us. The feeling is: God knows what will happen if we breach parity; it will be cataclysmic.
372. Mr Couling: I will say two things in response to your points, Mr Brady. First, there are no residence rules in the two systems. I have not talked to Anne about this, but, if Northern Ireland chooses to break parity, we would probably have to invent some form of residence test for ourselves. That would be quite tricky because European law does not like residence rules in general. It thinks that we configure such rules to stop people invoking treaty rights. It is quite a tricky area of law. I cannot advise the Committee today on exactly what we would have to do or, indeed, what you would need to do to protect yourselves. I posited the example of people moving across the border to the Republic as a theoretical position.
373. In the long term, parity gives Northern Ireland higher benefit rates than the economy on its own would normally generate. If you were to break parity, the two systems might move apart quite significantly in the long term. Of course, it would depend on the complexion of the Government elected here, but one policy response to high unemployment might be to lower benefit rates below the Great Britain levels in an effort to incentivise work, inward investment and the like. In one sense, being tied to Great Britain probably gives you higher rates than Northern Ireland would generate on its own. I do not say this because I want to do any of it. I am not trying to scare anyone. I am just saying that those are the economics involved. Rates and entitlements move up and down in relation to how economies perform, which is what is going on in welfare reform.
374. Mr Brady: I will make two points. First, there are residence conditions for income support and various other benefits already. Secondly, you raise an interesting point about benefit levels. It is because of the North's colonial link with Britain that we cannot raise revenue. If the North had fiscal levers and could raise revenue, as has been suggested, that might go some way to addressing the problem you raised.
375. I take your point that you are doing us a favour by giving us higher rates of benefit and that the only reason for that is that we cannot raise money ourselves. It is not an argument that stands up because if we had fiscal levers, we could possibly raise enough money to cover other aspects, particularly in relation to social security benefits and other areas around that.
376. Mr Couling: In one sense, if you were prepared, as an economy, to sustain higher rates of tax in order to fund higher rates of benefit, that is a political choice and that would have economic consequences. As of today, the cash transfer from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is about £3 billion. To provide exactly the same level of benefits, you would need to raise taxes by £3 billion in Northern Ireland. I do not know what that would be per capita, but I think it would be quite a whack.
377. These are theoretical things: if you make the mental leap that parity has gone, what will the world look like in 20 years? It may not look as though there is a much more generous scheme in Northern Ireland compared to Great Britain. It might be the other way around because, I suggest, the economics would pull you in an opposite direction. That might be contentious to say, but it is something you would need to bear in mind if you were going to break parity because it is where you could end up.
378. Mr Brady: I suppose, if our aspirations are fulfilled that will not be a problem.
379. Mr Couling: I am not going to comment on that. I am not going there. [Laughter.]
380. The Chairperson: That is enough now, Mickey. You have just stepped over the line. [Laughter.]
381. Ms Ní Chuilín: In relation to DWP and welfare reform, have the huge levels of multiple deprivation in the North, particularly in relation to DLA and child maintenance, and even generally, been taken into consideration? Deprivation levels here are not comparable to those elsewhere. Has that been factored in?
382. Mr Couling: We have had probably more engagement with Northern Ireland Ministers since the General Election than I can remember in any of my 25 years in the Department. Minister Attwood has been very active in putting the Northern Ireland perspective into the welfare reform debate.
383. We introduced the Bill a couple of weeks ago and it had its Second Reading yesterday. The Bill that we introduced was a different product from the original announcements that we made and some of that was down to the discussions that we had been having, particularly around the impacts of some of the reforms in high-unemployment areas. Northern Ireland has pockets of very high unemployment.
384. We are open to engagement on the welfare reform programme and to thinking about it in a localised way. In many ways, the Government's interest in localism offers some potential here. Mr Attwood has been trying to see what that would mean for Northern Ireland. So there is potential to flex around some of the edges here.
385. The reforms themselves strike at the heart of these problems, I hope. This is about trying to make work an attractive prospect for individuals in every circumstance. The UK Government's view is that work is the best form of welfare that one can provide.
386. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is fine if there are jobs for people. With all due respect, the fact is that that is a bit of a myth. Reforming the welfare system to get people out to work when there is no work available here will penalise people. The Minister here agreed to legislation which will penalise lone parents in that they will have no childcare because they cannot find work — unlike England and Wales, which have responsibility for childcare. In fact, there is potential for further deprivation here. The welfare system needs to be reformed, but not to the detriment of people who live in poverty and in areas of multiple deprivation. Although, in fairness, Minister Attwood has been active, what does that mean here in practice? Are you are looking at proposals that will, potentially, skirt around the issue of parity or not?
387. Mr Couling: There are not a fixed number of jobs in the economy. If we make people more employable and make them actively search for employment then there will be more jobs in the economy. Essentially, what is happening is that the capacity of the economy to grow is being expanded. We know of a very good example of that in the past 15 years, where four million jobs were created in the UK economy as a whole, two million of which went to people from outside the United Kingdom. We retained very high levels of inactivity through the period, because people were either not looking for work themselves or did not have the skills to fill the jobs that were created. The welfare reform package is part of trying to do something about that supply side.
388. The demand side is cyclical in nature. There are low levels of demand at the moment because of the world economy. The world economy will recover, and, at that point, the reforms will come in — they will not be introduced until 2013 — and, hopefully, we will have given the UK domestic population the capacity to take up many more of the jobs that growth will bring.
389. Specific aspects of the reforms have led to talk of people being penalised and so forth, but I do not accept that people are being penalised. We are not sanctioning people when there are no jobs for them to go to. The sanctions bite when people refuse to take a job. However, if there is no job there for them to take, they are not going to be sanctioned. Night does not follow that particular day. Welfare reforms have to be seen in the broader economic context. They make sense. We know that active labour market policies work. In the recession in Great Britain in the 1980s, we stopped signing people on every two weeks because we were overwhelmed by the number of people who were coming through the doors. That unemployment lingered for a lot longer than the 1990s recession, when we did not stop our active-led market approach. We kept signing people on, even though it was really difficult in the-then Employment Service to do that. People returned to work much quicker in that period. These policies do work, but what is happening in the wider economy will affect the speed or depth of their success.
390. Ms Ní Chuilín: I am not getting into an argument with you about market forces versus social need, because we are not going to get anywhere with those arguments. You are a civil servant who works for the Department for Work and Pensions and I am an elected representative; we both have views, and never the twain shall meet. We have heard a lot about the Minister speaking to DWP and Lord Freud. Have any specific welfare reform proposals emerged, not about breaking parity, but about stretching it?
391. Mr Couling: Two things have been going on: first, there have been discussions about the actual policies, where they apply to Northern Ireland and where they would not work. We have just dropped the policy on staged reduction in housing benefit for people who have been on jobseeker's allowance for more than 12 months. I could characterise that as the Northern Ireland perspective. There will be very long durations of unemployment, and the recession is lasting longer in Northern Ireland, partly because of the links that Northern Ireland has with the Republic and its economic woes. So, the Minister asked us about the merits of the policy on a UK-wide basis and then on a Northern Ireland basis. We concluded that, on a UK basis, now that the work programme is up and running and our universal credit plan is now developed, we do not need that policy in Great Britain. Obviously, because of parity, it follows that that will not happen in Northern Ireland.
392. We have also been looking at the work programme itself with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Government and at how Northern Ireland could develop its own approach to that and could use some of the funding mechanisms that we are using there to, essentially, use what would have been benefits expenditure to fund programmes to help people get back to work, and so forth. So, when that design is done, it will obviously relate to Northern Ireland circumstances rather than to Great Britain circumstances. It has worked like that.
393. Ms Lo: It is quite interesting to have you here to talk to us about welfare reform, which, as you have probably gathered, has not been well received by a lot of people here, particularly those in more deprived areas.
394. I want to come back to the carer's allowance. It will be hugely difficult, if not impossible, for us to breach parity. It is very difficult to do that because of the economics and risks involved. However, is it possible to break away and not categorise carer's allowance as income replacement benefit but rather use it like a care benefit and recognise the contribution of carers, whether young or old, in helping their loved ones by staying at home? It could be moved to the DHSSPS or the National Health Service and used like an additional benefit. That would mean that it would not be taken away from people when they reach pension age. Is that possible? Obviously, it will be done in Westminster rather than here.
395. Mr Couling: It is not impossible in structural or legal terms. However, there would be a cost. At the moment, the Government are wrestling with a huge deficit and are looking very carefully at any proposals that would cost more money given that we are trying hard to save money and are about to go through a very difficult period for public finances. One would have to ask whether this would be an efficient way of targeting resources and determine what it is that one is trying to do. Are we trying to recognise caring?
396. I think that the estimates for Great Britain are that six million people are caring but only about one million are receiving carer's allowance. If we were to expand that, what would it mean for costs? Carer's allowance has grown in cost by about 250% since 1990. Northern Ireland has had a successful take-up campaign, and we have had a successful take-up campaign in Great Britain as well. You would have to factor in all those issues. Ultimately, the faceless bureaucrats do not make those decisions; they are made by elected politicians like yourselves.
397. Mr Brady: I have a brief point about sanctions. I am already coming across lone parents, in particular, who have been told that there will be sanctions. We were told, particularly by the Minister, that it would not happen, yet it is starting to happen. If there is a sanction on the form, inevitably it will happen, irrespective of the situation pertaining at that time.
398. The Chairperson: During the Second Stage debate, it was said that the Bill was one way to give greater acknowledgement to carers. It may not be the best way, and it is not the only way. There was emphasis placed in some speeches on the need for fundamental reform at national level. Is there any work ongoing that is focusing on carers?
399. Mr Couling: Andrew Dilnot came to Belfast recently. I do not know whether the Committee had the chance to talk to him, but the Dilnot review is looking at how we fund social care, and it is considering carers in that respect as well. If we just went down the route of institutional care, it would be extraordinarily expensive. Therefore, how carer's benefit and the carers' system relate to that is something on which we are engaged with him. The Government will produce a response to his report, and I am sure that we will pick up on those issues.
400. The Chairperson: Neal, thank you very much for coming along. Anna was right, it was interesting. A lot of issues are involved and, if we had more time —
401. Mr Couling: I am not averse to coming back and discussing these issues. I tried to focus on parity, rather than go wider. I have no objections to coming back.
402. The Chairperson: None of us knows whether we will be in a job. We might be having a more face-to-face interaction with the welfare system ourselves.
403. Mr F McCann: We might have to face our own sanctions. [Laughter.]
404. The Chairperson: I am sure that, in the next mandate, the Committee for Social Development will want to take you up on that offer. It may not be in this formal format, but it might be useful to have a discussion to tease out some of the issues. Thank you for coming. I really appreciate it. It has been very useful and helpful.
Appendix 3
A2b – Access to Benefits
Action Cancer
Advice Northern Ireland
Autism Northern Irealnd
Belfast Unemployed Resource Centre
Carers Northern Ireland
Citizens Advice
Disability Action
Law Centre
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance
Older Peoples Advocate Northern Ireland
Save the Children
Termonmaguire Friendly Care Group
Peter McCallion
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3XX
4 March 2011
Dear Peter
We welcome the opportunity to submit written evidence on the Carer's Allowance Bill. We also welcome the aim of the bill to allow entitlement for carers who are also in receipt of Retirement Pension. Many carers are over State Pension Age and lose out due to the 'overlapping benefit' rules. The links between benefits are complex and can result in older carers also missing out on premiums for means-tested benefits as the 'underlying entitlement' provision is difficult to understand.
The most important point is the maintenance of parity of benefits across the United Kingdom and nothing should be done to jeopardise this. Any changes or innovations must be clearly thought out and be scrutinised by legislative experts to ensure no break in parity, now or in the future.
We commend the move by the Department of Finance and Personnel to increase the Carer's Premium in the calculation of Rate Relief. We hope that DSD's agencies will work closely with Land and Property Services and with the voluntary and community sector in promoting this change to eligible carers. A separate scheme or stand alone payment, as proposed by David McNarry, would ensure parity remains while also providing financial support for pensioner carers here.
We would welcome clarification as to whether the Committee thinks this bill would lead to future calls for changes to other overlapping benefits (eg Widow's Pension) and whether this could therefore lead to problems with the administration of those benefits.
We would also welcome clarification regarding the future status of the bill if, as stated in the cover letter, it does not complete its remaining stages before the Assembly is dissolved. Will there be any provision to ensure that it is brought before the new Assembly?
We are happy to discuss further any aspect of this response – you can do so by contacting Zoë Anderson on 028 9075 4070 or zoe@a2b.org.uk.
Yours sincerely
Zoë Anderson,
Content Officer.
Advice NI is a membership organisation that exists to provide leadership, representation and support for independent advice organisations to facilitate the delivery of high quality, sustainable advice services. Advice NI exists to provide its members with the capacity and tools to ensure effective advice services delivery. This includes: advice and information management systems, funding and planning, quality assurance support, NVQs in advice and guidance, social policy co-ordination and ICT development.
Membership of Advice NI is normally for organisations that provide significant advice and information services to the public. Advice NI has over 65 member organisations operating throughout Northern Ireland and providing information and advocacy services to over 100,000 people each year dealing with almost 250,000 enquiries on an extensive range of matters including: social security, housing, debt, consumer and employment issues. For further information, please visit www.adviceni.net.
Advice NI note that the Private Member's Bill in relation to Carer's Allowance has been referred to the Committee for Social Development for the Committee Stage. We further understand that the Bill proposes the amendment of the Social Security Administration (NI) Act 1992 to exclude State Pension from consideration in the assessment of Carer's Allowance, ensuring that carers who are pensioners are entitled to Carer's Allowance.
Advice NI has faced a daunting policy workload since January with responses developed and submitted to Universal Credit, DLA reform, the draft Budget consultation, the Review of Access to Justice and the draft guidance document to assist Councils in the provision of voluntary advice services. Unfortunately we have been unable to commit as much time as we would have liked to this important issue.
By way of back ground, Advice NI secured three Social Security Agency benefit uptake contracts in 2007, one of which was aimed at carers:
The client base for this exercise (approximately 3000) were appointees who were not getting Carer's Allowance but where the person being cared for was getting Attendance Allowance or middle / high care component of Disability Living Allowance but not the Severe Disability Premium.
During this exercise, advisers saw first hand what they perceived to be unfairness within the system when people who had been receiving Carer's Allowance in respect of caring for someone, reached pension age and were then deprived of their Carer's Allowance when State Pension became payable. This occurred even though the caring responsibilities continued. It is true that, because of 'overlapping benefit' rules it is not possible to claim both State Pension and Carer's Allowance –the higher benefit is paid, and this is normally the State Pension. Advisers and carers highlighted their frustration with this situation particularly as the caring responsibilities continue but the financial remuneration ceases.
Advice NI is aware that clients may be entitled to a Carer's Premium within Pension Credit, but (1) this does not help those people who are not entitled to Pension Credit; and (2) the Carer's Premium (£30.05) is paid at a rate much less than Carer's Allowance (£53.90). This is perhaps an issue deserving of further consideration, namely the payment of the Carers Premium at a comparable rate to that of Carer's Allowance. Indeed if this approach were to be taken, it would serve to ensure that no carer would be 'floated off' Pension Credit, as could be the case if Carer's Allowance were to continue to be paid alongside State Pension. An increase in the Carer's Premium would also increase access to other means tested benefits such as Housing Benefit.
On the issue of the Bill and excluding State Pension from consideration in the assessment of Carer's Allowance, Advice NI is mindful of the issue of parity. Whilst we would whole heartedly support changes which would benefit carers, we have to be mindful of the bigger picture and the fact that Northern Ireland receives substantial subsidy from Treasury in relation to social security costs. We would urge caution in terms of implementing any changes which might jeopardise the social security budget and negatively impact upon those vulnerable households who rely on the benefits system.
On the wider issue of budgets, and given Advice NI has just submitted a response to the draft Budget consultation, Advice NI would have to question where the money could be found within the Northern Ireland Budget to pay for the exclusion of State Pension from consideration in the assessment of Carer's Allowance. At a time when £4billion of savings are required and when Departments are struggling to find these savings, it is doubtful whether Northern Ireland can afford this approach.
In terms of doing everything possible without breaking parity (the 'how' we do things), Advice NI believes that specific action can be taken to address the issue of carers who see their Carer's Allowance taken away when State Pension comes into payment. Advice NI would call for specific programmes to be put in place to mitigate against the worst immediate consequences of the removal of Carer's Allowance. For example, those people affected could be invited to have a holistic Benefit Entitlement Check to ensure that all benefit entitlements (and respite entitlements) are in place for the carer and the person being cared for.
In addition Advice NI is mindful of the welfare reform agenda and the recent Disability Living Allowance (DLA) reform consultation and subsequent content of the Welfare Reform Bill. The stated aim is to reduce the DLA caseload and expenditure by 20% and one knock-on effect will be that carers will find themselves similarly deprived of Carer's Allowance. Advice NI highlighted the following in our DLA reform response:
"There is a real potential for the proposal to introduce the Personal Independence Payment as a replacement for Disability Living Allowance to have a significant differential impact in Northern Ireland. In terms of numbers, over 100 people per thousand receive Disability Living Allowance in comparison with over 50 people per thousand in Britain. Taken together with additional payments included within other benefits due to Disability Living Allowance being in payment (for example Severe Disability Premiums) we would fear that claimants in Northern Ireland will disproportionately suffer as a result of these proposals. Advice NI would draw attention to the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, a society emerging from forty years of conflict with many people still suffering as a result, which need to be factored into the implementation of Disability Living Allowance reform.
Advice NI would reiterate that 'how' the Department and ATOS (the medical provider) approach DLA reform will be important and will impact on carers in Northern Ireland.
Advice NI remains concerned as to how carers will be treated in future within the benefits system. For example giving evidence to the Commons Work & Pension Committee on the 9th February, Iain Duncan Smith refused to be drawn on whether Carer's Allowance would fall into Universal Credit and so be subject to means testing. Although the Welfare Reform Bill, which was published on 17th February, does not list Carer's Allowance as one of the benefits to be abolished (please see below) there is no doubt that it is a benefit that may be subject to changes in the future.
(a) income-based jobseeker's allowance under the Jobseekers Act 1995;
(b) income-related employment and support allowance under Part 1 of the
Welfare Reform Act 2007;
(c) income support under section 124 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;
(d) housing benefit under section 130 of that Act;
(e) council tax benefit under section 131 of that Act;
(f) child tax credit and working tax credit under the Tax Credits Act 2002.
Advice NI further note government's intention to introduce a new test for entitlement to the Carer's Premium addition of Pension Credit without the need for a Carer's Allowance claim, according to Minister for Pensions Steve Webb.
Responding to a written parliamentary question, Mr Webb said -
'The government announced at the introduction of the Welfare Reform Bill that carers allowance will continue to exist as a universal benefit providing an independent income for carers and recognition of the important role they play.
As carer's allowance will continue to exist as a separate benefit we will retain the link between its receipt and eligibility to the additional amount for caring in pension credit. However we have introduced a clause in the Welfare Reform Bill to amend the State Pension Credit Act which will give us the flexibility to set an alternative test which won't require a pension credit customer with caring responsibilities to first claim another benefit in order to receive the additional amount for caring.
The detailed test for the award of the additional amount will be set out in regulations and will make the process for accessing the additional support for carers through pension credit more straightforward. We are currently considering the timing for the introduction of these changes.'
The Clause referred to is No.73 of the Welfare Reform Bill:
(1) The State Pension Credit Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2 (guarantee credit), in subsection (8), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—
"(a) the claimant has regular and substantial caring responsibilities,
or
(b) the claimant is a member of a couple the other member of which as such responsibilities,".
(3) In section 17 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the appropriate place there is inserted—
""regular and substantial caring responsibilities" has such meaning as may be prescribed;".
Advice NI believes that the consideration of this Carer's Allowance Bill will serve to raise the profile of the role of carers and hopefully help to protect the interests of carers within the uncertain times that lie ahead.
Bob Stronge (Chief Executive)
Fiona Magee (Deputy Chief Executive)
Kevin Higgins (Head of Policy)
Advice NI
1 Rushfield Avenue
Belfast
BT7 3FP
Tel: 028 9064 5919
Fax: 028 9049 2313
Email: bob@adviceni.net
fiona@adviceni.net
kevin@adviceni.net
Website: www.adviceni.net
Dear Mr. McCallion,
Thank you for this opportunity to provide written evidence on behalf of Autism NI for the Committee Stage of the Carer's Allowance Bill.
Autism NI, as Northern Ireland's Autism charity, has a membership that includes almost 2,000 carers as well as a Family Support network of over 30 groups.
The Charity therefore commends the Bill sponsor for raising the concerns behind the proposed legislation. Autism NI has produced the following documents (available from our website www.autismni.org) which support the case for greater support for carers that addresses the financial costs of caring:-
i. Autism NI notes the concern that the Bill in its current form, while potentially benefiting many could negatively impact upon significant numbers of pension credit claimants.
ii. Autism NI notes that much work needs to be undertaken to achieve higher uptake among carers who are pensioners to access their entitlement to carers' premium in other benefits such as housing benefit, pension credit, etc.
iii. Autism NI would also support the case for better resourcing of respite provision which meaningfully addresses the stress, responsibility and physical commitment of full time caring.
iv. Autism NI notes that the Bill is caught between the consultation on Welfare Reform, Universal Credit, parity within the UK and the closing weeks of the NI Assembly's current mandate.
v. Autism NI notes the commitment from the Minister for Social Development to research the need and the numbers affected by the dilemma highlighted by this Bill.
On this basis, Autism NI would support a cross government review of existing carers' policies with a particular emphasis on "pensioner carers" and the benefits and services (including respite) required to support them as they provide a priceless service to their families and society in general. This issue requires a collective of measures if the lives of pensioner carers are to be meaningfully addressed.
It is clear that the Bill in its current form has raised many questions and that further debate and independent research needs to take place.
Autism NI supports the spirit of the Bill but is not currently in a position to support it in its entirety.
Yours sincerely,
Arlene Cassidy
Chief Executive
45/47Donegall Street Belfast, BT1 2FG
Tel: 028 90 96 1111 - Fax: 028 90 96 1110
International - Tel: 00 44 (0) 28 90 96 1111 - Fax: 00 44 (0) 28 90 96 1110
We are grateful for the opportunity to provide comment on The Private Members Bill
The Belfast Unemployed Resource Centre (BURC) welcomes the Bill, primarily in that it highlights the need for proper provision of support for carers and recognises the invaluable contribution which they make to society.
BURC understands that this Private Member's Bill proposes the amendment of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 and is presently at Committee Stage. The proposed amendment, if passed, would exclude State Retirement Pension from the assessment of Carer's Allowance. This would then ensure that claimants who are in receipt of State Retirement Pension would qualify and be entitled to Carer's Allowance. Presently, under the Overlapping Benefit Regulations, claimants in receipt of State Retirement Pension are penalised accordingly.
Carer's Allowance is a means tested benefit and to qualify, claimants must satisfy the following criteria:
BURC recognises and is sympathetic to the sponsor's sentiment behind the drawing up of the Bill and for the much needed awareness raising given to the army of carers who give up so much of their lives for others and for so little recognition, despite the fact that the care which they provide benefits the taxpayer through huge financial savings.
However, while the Bill would serve its intended targets well, i.e. those in receipt of State Retirement Pension, there are many other carers:
All are vital to our society, yet would not benefit from the proposed Bill.
Carer's Allowance should not be divided into "Better off" and "Worse off" claimants.
BURC believes that the £20.6 million cost of this Bill would be better targeted towards the needs of carers by way of a financial package to support those carers with the greatest financial need and to do so as a matter of urgency.
The proposed Bill, albeit extremely well-intentioned, we believe is therefore inappropriate and would not serve overall to improve the support so much required for carers
Barrie McLatchie
Project Manager
Welfare Rights & Appeals Section
Belfast Unemployed Resource Centre
45 – 47 Donegall Street
Belfast
BT1 2FG
Tel: 028 9096 1111
Fax: 028 9096 1110
Email: barrie.mclatchie@burc.org
Website: www.burc.org
The Belfast Unemployed Resource Centre (BURC) was set up in September 2004, the premises were opened in 1985. The objectives and political philosophy of the Centre have remained unchanged since 1984.
Carers Northern Ireland welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion on Carers Allowance. We are grateful to Mr McNarry for bringing forward his Private Members Bill, which has opened up debate on the issue, and which led to the joint DSD/DHSSPS Review of Support Provisions for Carers. It may be worth noting that all the major pieces of Carers legislation in the UK have been brought about by Private Members Bills, so they are clearly a powerful mechanism that can be effectively used by Government to address areas of disadvantage.
Carers Allowance is a critically important benefit for carers. Carers can, of course, be found in all walks of life and at every income level, but the research over the years has told us a number of things about the financial impact of caring.
Firstly caring, particularly over a long period of time, will make people poorer, most dramatically if they have to give up work in order to care. Carers UK's 2008 report Caring in Crisis found that: 74% of carers are struggling to pay essential utility bills, 65% are living in fuel poverty (spending more than 10% of their income on fuel), and 52% are cutting back on food to make ends meet.
Secondly, no matter what the income level of a carer's household, a carer's personal disposable income will be reduced by caring. The same study found that 66% of carers are spending their own income or savings to pay for care costs. This is why a benefit directed specifically at the carer is so important.
Finally we know that older carers face particular difficulties - one third of older carers have left work early or retired early because of their caring role and one in six felt that their pensions had been affected by caring.
There are many problems with Carers Allowance. Its value is too low: at £53.90 it is the lowest earnings replacement benefit. I am not sure how many people would willingly replace their earnings with £1.54 an hour (assuming the minimum 35 hour caring commitment to qualify for the benefit) – it is certainly not an incentive to care. The benefit also does not reflect the extra cost, and extra commitments, of caring for more than one elderly or disabled person. The fact that there is no 'earnings taper' means that it is difficult for carers who want to keep doing a little paid work, when they can, to juggle the work with the caring. These are just some of the difficulties with a benefit designed many years ago for a world we no longer live in.
However, for our members, it is clear that the overlapping benefits rule, which means that Carers Allowance ceases when the Retirement Pension is paid, is the by far the greatest failing of Carers Allowance. Carers are furious, and many of them extremely shocked, to discover that they will lose their Carers Allowance at retirement age.
The caring does not stop when Carers Allowance stops – for many carers it intensifies as the person they care for gets older and their need for support increases. As they get older they provide care at greater risk to their own health and well-being. The last Census found that people caring 50 or more hours per week are more than twice as likely to be in 'not good health' as those not caring (20% vs 9%). More than half of these carers are over the age of 55, and it is amongst the over 55s that the 'not good health' rate is highest. Even more striking, we find that there were 348 people over the age of 85 who were providing over 50 hours of care every week.
Carers Northern Ireland members are unfailingly vocal about what they see as one of the greatest injustices faced by older carers. They feel strongly that older carers are not being recognised and respected for what they do, and they want to see the law changed.
DSD will argue that it is not their responsibility to provide recognition for carers. However, it is current Executive Policy (Caring for Carers 2006) that Government should recognise the role of carers and that 'Government should invest in carers': There is no reason why this should not be done though DSD and the benefits system, if feasible to do so. In fact, the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, in its 2008 report 'Valuing and Supporting Carers' undertook a full review of carers benefits, and specifically considered the issue of recognition of the cost and impact of caring. They recommended that Carers Allowance be replaced with a two-tiered benefit for carers which would contain a 'Carer Support Allowance' at Jobseekers' Allowance rates (which would be governed by overlapping benefits rules) plus a 'Caring Costs payment' at Child Benefit levels which would not end on receipt of pension.
Carers Northern Ireland recognises that there are difficulties in the Assembly 'going it alone' in abolishing the overlapping benefits rule for carers, particularly the principle of parity in the benefits system across the UK as a whole. We understand that there are both difficulties in both the short-term financial implications of such a change, and risks involved in departing from the parity principle that could, in theory, open the door to poorer benefits entitlements in NI in the future.
We would, of course, prefer to see a universal change to the overlapping benefits rule for all older carers across the UK as a fundamental change to carers' benefits. However, any developments by the Northern Ireland Assembly could add to the pressure on Government to bring carers benefits into the 21st Century. We have seen this before, where carers' legislation brought in under the previous Assembly later found its way into the law of Scotland, Wales and England.
If the primary consideration is the cost of funding this measure, then clearly this is a matter for the Assembly to decide. However we would like to raise the question older carers will be asking – just what level of investment is the Assembly prepared to make in older carers, when carers over 60 are saving the country a massive quarter of a billion pounds a year in Northern Ireland alone through their unpaid work, given freely but often at a considerable cost to themselves?
Citizens Advice is the largest advice charity in Northern Ireland working against poverty, meeting the information and advice needs of some 92,000 people per year and dealing with over 317,000 issues. Benefit queries continue to the single largest area of work accounting of over 56.6% of total issues dealt with by advisers and demonstrate the complex nature of work undertaken by the organisation. The service is delivered via 32 local offices and 100 other outlets.
Citizens Advice Northern Ireland has formal links to National Citizens Advice in England and Wales and close working relationships with Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS). Together the three associations constitute the largest advice network in Europe, with over 60 year's experience of providing advice and information to the public. Citizens Advice also works in partnership with the Citizens Information Board in the Republic of Ireland to provide cross border advice and information.
The CAB network is very finely tuned to the targeting of social need and, with its regional spread, modern integrated IT infrastructure and skilled staff, represents an efficient and cost effective channel for the delivery of information and advice to the most socially vulnerable people in Northern Ireland.
Access, inclusiveness and principles
Advice is provided on a huge range of issues by trained, specialist advisers across both main communities and to minority groupings from 28 main offices and from some 120 other outlets within the framework of 4 principles. The advice is delivered with the framework of 4 principles.
To ensure that advice and information are as accessible to as many people as possible the services of Citizens Advice are available through local CAB offices, online at www.adviceguide.org.uk, by e-mail, by telephone and in many community venues such as health centres, hospitals and community centres. In addition, the majority of CAB offices also provide home visits for those who are unable to access their local office due to health problems.
In June 2009 Citizens Advice was awarded a new contract to increase the uptake of Social Security benefits for vulnerable people in Northern Ireland. This is the third year that Citizens Advice has been contracted to deliver this programme given its expertise in the benefits system, its work against poverty and social exclusion and the organisation's regional spread.
During the programme Citizens Advice dealt with 10,000 clients with the aim of increasing the number claiming social security benefits and the amount of benefit being paid. Over the last 12 months an additional 1,887 claims for benefit were identified which in turn amounted to £6.1 million annually and resulting in an estimated total of £38.8 million for clients using average claim durations (see table below). People who benefited from the project were on average better off by £55 per week with average arrears of benefit of £535.
The SSA has been proactive in increasing benefit uptake among its customers and Citizens Advice is pleased to have been involved in the delivery of this contract for the past three years. Citizens Advice has been publicly supportive about this emerging business model which combines the intelligent use of data matching and partnership working with the advice sector in Northern Ireland. This has ensured that many vulnerable groups, in particular older people, have accessed benefits that they were unaware they were entitled to. Citizens Advice believes that this approach of using departmental databases alongside the development of partnerships in the advice sector should be extended as it is a proven and successful service delivery model.
| People Contacted | People Benefiting | Annual Benefit (and arrears) | Value for Money | Overall Benefit (using average claim duration) |
| 25,274 | 1,887 | £6,046,829 | 8.5 : 1 | £38,849,335 |
Source: SSA 2010
"The true impact of this engagement cannot be quantified as it includes ancillary benefits such as applications to the Blue Badge Scheme, advice on debt, making wills etc."
Evaluation of the Benefit Uptake Programme: SSA 2010.
Citizens Advice is currently undertaking the SSA Benefit Uptake Project for 2010/11.
The Dealing with Debt Money Advice Service has been running since April 2006 when Citizens Advice was first awarded a two year contract by DETI to provide face to face money advice across Northern Ireland. In 2008, Citizens Advice was awarded a further 3 year contract to March 2011.
Over the period of 2006-2009 the service assisted close to 6,500 people and handled over £52 million of debt. Statistics for the period April 2009 - March 2010 show that the service dealt with over £33 million of debt and helped over 2,500 people with their debt problems. This is an increase of 7% on the previous year and continues the four-year upward trend since the service began.
Citizens Advice has been working closely with NIE Energy for more than ten years with regard to projects that include benefit maximisation, energy advice and debt advice. The NIE For Your Benefit (FYB) project, run in partnership with NIE, continued during 2010 with Citizens Advice working alongside other advice providers to help encourage benefit maximisation amongst vulnerable customers in Northern Ireland. This project has been ongoing since April 2008.
Customers were selected by NIE to receive a letter inviting them to contact Citizens Advice for a free, independent and confidential benefits entitlement check. During 2010 Citizens Advice successfully completed its target of 651 Benefit entitlement checks and at the request of NIE completed a further 491 checks to help them meet their target. As a result of the 2010 exercise £418,216 in additional benefits were identified and claimed on behalf of clients.
Carer's allowance is a weekly benefit for someone caring for a person who is severely disabled. They do not have to live together or be related. The person cared for must get the disability living allowance (DLA) care component (highest or middle rate) or attendance allowance.
Carer's allowance is non means-tested and a client who has never worked can claim it. Carer's allowance is taxable income and counts as income for means-tested benefits and is paid to anyone person over 16 who provides at least 35 hours care per week. Most clients receiving carer's allowance will also be credited with Class 1 national insurance contributions.
If a client is entitled to a basic state retirement pension and is also eligible for carer's allowance, s/he will not receive carer's allowance if her/his basic state pension equals or exceeds the amount of carer's allowance to which s/he is entitled. However, s/he may be entitled to a carer's premium or an additional amount for a carer.
Carers allowance is very user friendly and simple to apply for as the carer does not have to complete time sheets or continually submit evidence of hours caring. The pattern of caring allows for breaks in caring and flexible caring i.e. the client does not have to be caring every day of the week.
Many carers feel that the current rate of carers allowance is inadequate for the level of care that they provide to a loved one. An employee care worker would be paid at least minimum wage and would not be expected to work for more than 48 hours per week. However many carers are providing care around the clock with very little respite or back up. In an ideal world a carer would be receiving a decent wage and this work should be validated and recognised appropriately.
A large proportion of carers have to leave full or part time employment in order to care for a friend or family member. The financial hardship caused by the drop in income adds to an already stressful time.
Carers in full time education are not entitled to claim carers allowance, therefore it would be useful if this aspect of the legislation was amended from the current position which prevents anyone in full time education from caring.
Carers allowance will not be paid to carers earning over the lower earnings limit (currently £95). It would be useful to consider raising the amount of permitted earnings for carers who are gainfully employed as this would have less of a restriction on carers who are working. The Legislation was adjusted previously to allow for the National Minimum Wage and in this case the earnings limit was increased accordingly.
Carers allowance cannot be paid with any of the following:
If a carer is in receipt of any of the listed benefits but is still eligible for carer's allowance, they may be able to retain an underlying entitlement to the carer's premium and in which case, this can increase any means tested benefits for carers on a low income. Carers who are owner occupiers will also get an increase in rate relief in April 2011 due to the carer premium increasing by 20%
Carers allowance will be kept separate from the new universal credit and will not be means tested. This will be useful for carers who have other income such as personal pensions or have a partner who works full time. People who have reached state pension age are not likely to be included within the Universal Credit at the time of writing.
Carers allowance is currently counted in full for benefits and tax credits therefore if a carer receives the full amount, this will affect any entitlement to means tested benefits and passport benefits.
Carers who look after more than one person are not entitled to a double award or any additional monies; they can only receive carers allowance for one person.
If a person, currently on pension credit and housing benefit received a new benefit of £53 their pension credit would be reduced pound for pound. Carers allowance would presumably not count as retirement income for savings credit as it is currently not categorised as retirement income.
Housing benefit for rent and rates has a withdrawal rate with two separate tapers. For every pound that the client's income is over their applicable amount, they then have to pay 12p towards their rates and if they are a tenant, 65p towards their rent. If the client is an owner occupier they could stand to lose income in circumstances where the carer premium added to support for mortgage interest costs exceeded the amount of carer's allowance. The carer's addition is currently £30.05.
If the overlapping rule were to be removed for people who have reached pension age, there would need to be better off calculations completed for each individual carer and additional amendments to the legislation in order for carers not to be financially penalised under the notional income rules.
Direct payments are an alternative to a care package; they are paid by the DHSSPS to a person with a disability who has been assessed as needing a certain level of care. The local Health trust also has to be satisfied that the person can manage to employ a formal carer. The person with the disabilities can then use the direct payments to employ a formal carer for the hours allocated by the health Trust. If a client wants to employ a relative or a person who lives with them, these are only paid in exceptional circumstances. It is therefore not always feasible for carers to consider this as a viable route. They can only be paid for the hours that the Health Trust has assessed the person to need. In addition to this there has been evidence of some clients using care agencies who are charged more than the trust for employing a carer. While this model is very suitable for some individuals it does require formal employer status and many people are put off by the necessary additional requirements. It would however be worth noting that this model could be examined in more detail and variations of payments directly to the carer.
The DHSSPS and DSD joint report in 2009 Review of the support provision for carers made a number of recommendations outlined by individual carers, carers groups and the voluntary sector to consider increasing the amount that carers should live on. In the current economic climate it may be worthwhile noting that the recommendations by DSD were to continue the long standing policy of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Social Security Agency has funded benefit uptake programmes for carers detailed in the introduction. The Work and Pensions committee also looked at a Caring costs payment which would enable carers to purchase respite care.
Disability Action is a pioneering Northern Ireland charity working with and for people with disabilities. We work with our members to provide information, training, transport awareness programmes and representation for people regardless of their disability; whether that is a physical, mental, sensory, hidden or learning disability.
21% (369,390) of adults and 6% (105,540) of children in Northern Ireland has a disability and the incidence is higher here than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Over one quarter of all families here are affected.
As a campaigning body, we work to bring about positive change to the social, economic and cultural life of people with disabilities and consequently our entire community.
Our network of services is provided via our Headquarters in Belfast and regional offices in Carrickfergus, Londonderry and Dungannon.
Disability Action welcomes the opportunity to submit written evidence on behalf of this Bill.
Firstly we would like to publicly thank Mr McNarry for bringing this forward as a Private Member's Bill and raising awareness of this issue and the needs of Carers.
Disability Action understands that Carers' Northern Ireland has already given oral and written information to the Committee on this issue. We wholly support the information that Carers' NI have submitted and would encourage the Committee to take it further.
In addition Disability Action's Information Service performs a range of functions including advising callers on benefits entitlement.
Many older carers tell us that they feel they are not valued and are worthless as the Government is not recognising their caring role by imposing this rule. We are also concerned that against a background of benefit cuts, disabled people and their carers will be significantly worse off. We would be happy to provide the Committee with our responses to a range of welfare reform consultation and also research on this issue. Abolishing the overlapping benefit rule for Carers Allowance and Retirement Pension would alleviate some financial hardship older carers' experience.
Disability Action wholly supports this Bill and would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Committee to discuss it further.
Thank you for your letter dated 14 February 2011 and the opportunity to comment on David McNarry's Private Member's Bill.
The Law Centre welcomes the Bill in that it focuses on the issue of carer's contribution to society and the need for proper financial recognition and support for carers.
In effect, the Bill makes a small but significant amendment to the provisions governing Carer's Allowance, namely to exclude the state retirement pension from the overlapping benefit rules. As a result, a carer would be able to keep both his or her carer's allowance and retirement pension. To understand the impact of the change, it is necessary to briefly outline the rules around Carer's Allowance.
Carer's Allowance (CA) is a means-tested benefit of £53.90 a week with additions for adult and child dependants. To qualify for CA, a claimant must:
Carer's Allowance is counted in full as income for claimants receiving Income Support, income-related ESA, Jobseeker's Allowance, Pension Credit or Housing Benefit. All of these benefits include a carer's premium or addition of £30.05 a week which is included when assessing the level of entitlement to benefit. In effect, full-time carer's income on means-tested benefits increases by just over £30 a week.
Carer's Allowance also counts as an overlapping benefit. In effect, a clamant is unable to receive more than one of the following 'earnings replacement' benefits at one time, namely:
In practice, the rules that apply mean that a contributory benefit is paid in preference to a non-contributory benefit so anyone with a retirement pension of more than £53.90 a week will not receive CA (unless also claiming an adult dependant addition). The underlying entitlement to CA remains in place so that carer's premiums or additions in means-tested benefits can still be included in assessment of entitlement.
Carers rightly feel aggrieved at both the low level of entitlement (equivalent to £1.54 an hour – assuming care is for 35 hours a week or if on means-tested benefits, only 86p an hour). In addition, carers do not like the restrictions placed on working or studying and the loss of the allowance where other social security payments are in play. Successive governments have baulked at amending these rules on grounds of cost. It is interesting to note that it appears the same rationale has been applied to not extending CA significantly beyond its current role in the proposal for Universal Credit. An estimate of the cost of caring in Britain is that it now amounts to unpaid labour of £4 billion and rising.
The Law Centre has no doubt the Carer's Allowance Bill will right a wrong. However, it will only do so for relatively better off carers while leaving the financial circumstances of lower income carers unchanged.
Very few claimants in receipt of Pension Credit will be assisted by this Bill as both Retirement Pension and Carer's Allowance are treated as income when assessing entitlement. Effectively, the Carer's Allowance to be kept as a result of the Bill will be offset against entitlement to Pension Credit. The carers who will benefit from the Bill are:
In addition, claimants who are claiming a retirement pension and CA but failing to claim Pension Credit when entitled will also benefit from the Bill's provision. Arguably, this
is an issue to be tackled through take-up initiatives.
In essence, therefore, the dilemma is this. The Bill will cost £20.6million (net) at 2008/2009 prices and the Department has estimated that the cost has risen significantly since then – is this the best way to target resources at carers? On balance, the Law Centre's view is that the Department for Social Development, in conjunction with DHSSPS and other relevant departments should be pressed to develop a financial package for carers equivalent to this sum which aims to support those most in financial need and to do so within an agreed timetable.
In our view, this is the unequivocal commitment which should be made in return for not proceeding with this Bill. As such, this would ensure that David McNarry's laudable aim of tangibly recognizing the role of carers is met while focussing support where it is most needed.
Law Centre (NI)
March 2011
Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Belfast BT4 3XX
2 March 2011
Dear Peter
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written evidence for inclusion in the Committee's Report on the Bill.
As the Older People's Advocate I would be supportive of the main proposals outlined in the Bill and at this time do not wish to suggest alternative or any additional working to the clauses.
Yours sincerely,
DAME JOAN HARBISON
Older People's Advocate
Thank you for the invitation to contribute to the above. We will not be participating in this legislation.
Kind Regards
Anne
Anne Moore
Policy and Assembly Co-ordinator
Save the Children
Popper House
15 Richmond Park
Belfast BT10 0HB
Tel: 028 9043 2824
Fax: 028 9043 1314
Email: a.moore@savethechildren.org.uk
No child is born to die, but 8 million lose their lives needlessly every year. You can help at www.savethechildren.org.uk/bornto
This email was sent from Save the Children, registered charity England and Wales (213890), Scotland (SC039570) and registered company England and Wales (178159) or from Save the Children (Sales) Ltd, registered company in London (875945). For legal information go to http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/privacypolicy
Save the Children, 1 St. John's Lane, London, EC1M 4AR
Telephone +44 (0)20 7012 6400 Fax +44 (0)20 7012 6963
www.savethechildren.org.uk
Appendix 4
DSD briefing paper
Correspondence from DSD 7 February 2011
Correspondence from Bill Sponsor, David McNarry 21 February 2011
Committee Correspondence 25 February 2011
Correspondence from DSD 15 March 2011
1. On 31 March David McNarry MLA introduced the Carer's Allowance Bill [NIA 13/07] to make provision preventing the adjustment of carer's allowance by reference to retirement pension.
2. The Department recognises the enormous amount of work which is done by those who have the responsibility of caring for severely disabled people and there is no doubt that their work is of great value to the wider community as well as to those for whom they are caring. However the Carer's Allowance Bill poses very real problems including very significant cost implications and ramifications for the wider policy of parity in social security.
3. The social security system is an integrated system of interlocking benefits which can be divided into three broad strands—
(a) national insurance benefits (with entitlement dependent on paid or credited national insurance contributions), for example, basic state pension and incapacity benefit;
(b) income-related benefits (based on financial need), for example, income support and housing benefit, and
(c) non-contributory benefits (not dependent on financial need or national insurance contributions), for example, disability living allowance and carer's allowance.
4. Many benefit recipients can satisfy the eligibility criteria for several benefits at the same time. However, since 1948 one of the fundamental tenets of the social security system has been that there should not be double provision for the same contingency. In short, the effect is that where two or more benefits are paid to cover the same purpose, for example, as income replacement, only the higher or highest of the benefits is payable. This structure enables finite resources to be focused most effectively on the people who face the greatest financial pressure.
5. The Overlapping Benefits Regulations make detailed provision to give effect to this basic rule in relation to non-means tested benefits. In relation to means-tested benefits, the same practical result is achieved by taking the amount of other benefits into account when calculating the claimant's income.
6. 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 because of caring responsibilities. It is not, and never has been, a payment for caring. Therefore, a person not working for two reasons – because of caring commitments and because they have reached state pension age does not receive double provision from the social security system for income maintenance.
7. Where state pension is in payment, carer's allowance will not usually be payable. However, where someone would receive less from state pension than from carer's allowance, an amount of carer's allowance can be paid to make up the difference. In addition, where carer's allowance cannot be paid, the person will keep underlying entitlement to the benefit. This gives access to the carer premium in the income-related benefits such as housing benefit or the equivalent additional amount in pension credit.
8. The Bill would prevent regulations providing 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 could 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 caring rather than an income replacement benefit.
9. The overlapping benefit rules are not linked to age and do not apply solely to state pension and carer's allowance. A number of other income-maintenance benefits are affected by these 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.
10. Carers over pensionable age on low income 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. Of the 10,000 carers over pensionable age in receipt of pension credit, approximately 7,500 would see a reduction in the amount paid and be financially no better off, whilst 2,400 would no longer be entitled to pension credit and therefore not be passported to full housing benefit entitlement, nor would they automatically get help with the cost of dental treatment and dentures, help with the cost of glasses, help with fares to hospital, help with court fees or have access to free school meals for their children.
11. Over 14,000 carer's allowance claimants over pensionable age are not currently receiving a payment of carer's allowance due to the overlapping benefit rules and a further 680 receive a reduced amount. It is estimated that the proposed Bill would therefore generate additional gross expenditure of at least £38.6m per annum based on current claim rates. This cost does not take account of the potential increase in claims by those who currently do not claim carer's allowance because of the overlapping benefits rule. A further factor not 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 estimate that the number of people over current pensionable age will increase by 39% between 2006 and 2021. The number of people aged 65 and over will continue to rise after 2021, and there are projected to be twice as many people aged 65 and over in 2041 as there are today. There therefore is the potential for the costs to rise very substantially in the coming years.
12. If the Assembly were to pass the Bill, the Department would not be able to find the expected £38.6m additional costs from its budget.
13. If enacted, the Bill would break the long-standing policy of parity with Great Britain and in effect no longer maintain a single system of social security across the United Kingdom provided for by section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Department has informally explored the possibility of the overlapping benefits rule for carer's allowance and state pension being abolished in Great Britain, however, the estimated additional carer's allowance costs of over £1.5bn per annum militate against this.
14. Under the policy of parity, Northern Ireland benefit costs are funded in line with the actual entitlement of claimants. This results in an annual subvention of around £180m per year from the Great Britain National Insurance Fund and £2.4 billion from general taxation to fund non-contributory benefits (including carer's allowance) and income-related benefits. The proposals for the Bill clearly breach the parity principle and the additional costs would fall to the Northern Ireland block. There is also the possibility that Treasury will take the view that Britain should not be subsidising Northern Ireland to pay enhanced benefits. For example, if Northern Ireland can find £38.6m to pay enhanced benefits, Treasury may argue that Northern Ireland does not need the current level of subsidy to maintain parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Paragraph 5.4.3 of the Statement of Funding Policy for Devolved Administrations provides for a review of the funding arrangements if Northern Ireland social security policy is changed to differ from the rest of the UK.
15. The whole issue of carers' incomes, including carer's allowance, is being examined in depth as part of the current review of the National Carers' Strategy 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 be considering what changes should be made to carer's allowance. The Department believes that it would be premature to seek to legislate in this area before the outcome of the review is known.
16. The tremendous personal commitment of people who are prepared to give their time so freely to their caring role is beyond doubt. Carer's allowance was introduced in order to provide some recognition of the critical role played by carers, particularly those who do not qualify for other benefits and to provide a measure of income replacement. Older carers with limited resources can receive more substantial help from income-related benefits like pension credit and housing benefit, which are paid at higher rates for carers. However, the Bill proposals have very significant cost implications and possible implications for the current funding regime which is based on the maintenance of parity. In addition the Bill would not help poorer pensioner carers and indeed would actually disadvantage a number of them. Indeed if there was additional funding available to be directed to carers, the proposal contained in this Bill would not be the best way of ensuring that the money reached carers' pockets. The Department believes that it makes sense to await the outcome of the current review of carers' income and implement subsequent changes that will make a real difference to carers, particularly poorer carers.
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:
"delete all after "that" and add "Whilst recognising the dedication of carers and their very important contribution to society, the Second Stage of the Carer's Allowance Bill be not agreed pending the outcome of the current review of financial and other support available to carers and pending further consideration of other complex financial and policy implications, including the principle of parity."
The passage of the reasoned amendment would end passage of the Bill. However, the Minister has assured the proposer that she would raise the issue of carers with the Chancellor and the Minister for Work and Pensions. She also advised that she would feed the issue into the ongoing review of the National Carer's Strategy.
Social Security Policy and Legislation Division
Level 1 James House
2-4 Cromac Avenue
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
Belfast
BT7 2JA
028 9081 9108
028 9081 9139
janis.creane@dsdni.gov.uk
Mr Peter McCallion
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX Your ref: CSD/009/2008/5/CF
7 February 2011
Dear Mr McCallion
Carer's Allowance Bill
We appreciated the opportunity on Thursday to brief the Committee regarding the potential implications of the Carer's Allowance Bill.
In your letter of 3 February to Margaret Sisk you have requested information on the impact of the Bill on carers and information on the effectiveness of recent Social Security Agency Benefit Uptake initiatives.
The relevant information is set out in the attached tables which I hope the Committee find helpful.
Yours sincerely
Janis Creane
Social Security Policy and Legislation Division
cc Margaret Sisk
Billy Crawford
Ashleigh Kelly
| 2009-10 exercise | |
| Number of claimants contacted specifically in relation to CA | > 3,100 |
| Additional weekly benefit awarded (all benefits including CA) | £9,850 |
| Arrears of benefit paid | £29,600 |
| Number of successful claims to CA | 82 |
| Additional weekly CA awarded | £935 |
| 2010-2011 exercise | |
| Number of claimants contacted specifically in relation to CA | > 2,000 |
| Number of successful claims to CA | N/K until June |
| Additional benefit awarded | N/K until June |
| All Benefit Uptake exercises from 2006 to 2010 | |
| Number of successful claims to CA | > 1,100 |
| Additional weekly CA awarded | > £4,000 |
| Total number of pensioners contacted to raise awareness of potential entitlement (all benefits) | > 319,000 |
| Number of pensioners contacted specifically for improving uptake of CA | > 40,000 |
| Total number of people (all ages) contacted specifically for improving uptake of CA | > 73,000 |
| Current weekly rate of Carer's Allowance (CA) | £53.90 |
| Number of CA claimants not receiving CA because of the overlap with State Pension | 17,800 |
| Number of CA claimants receiving a reduced rate of CA because of the overlap with State Pension | 700 |
| Total: 18,500 | |
| Number of CA claimants over pensionable age in receipt of Pension Credit | > 13,000 |
| Of these, number of claimants whose Pension Credit would be reduced by the same amount as they would gain if CA paid (ie financially no better off) | > 10,000 |
| Number of claimants who would no longer be entitled to Pension Credit and therefore not passported to full Housing Benefit entitlement, nor automatically get help with the cost of dental treatment, glasses, fares to hospital, court fees or have access to free school meals for their children | > 3,000 |
| Additional cost if Bill proposals implemented (based on current claim rates – 18,500 x £53.90 x 52 weeks) | £51.8m |
| Savings in Pension Credit if Bill proposals implemented – revert to Treasury (13,337 (exact no.) x £53.90 x 52 weeks) | £37.4m |
| Net amount of additional benefit actually paid to claimants if Bill implemented (cost £51.8m less savings to Treasury £37.4m) | £14.4m |
| Costs calculated in 2008 (14,700 claimants x £50.55 (weekly rate of CA in 2008) x 52 weeks) | £38.6m |
Constituency office
Corporation North
9B Regent St
Newtownards
Co Down
BT23 4AB
Ph: 028 9182 6736
Email: davidmcnarry@btconnect.com
Web site: www.davidmcnarry.com
David McNarry MLA
Ulster Unionist Assembly Member
For Strangford
21 February 2011
Mr Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
Dear Peter
I thank you for your efforts made for me to attend the Committee for Social Development and brief them on my Carer's Allowance Bill.
Unfortunately despite best endeavours we have been unable to find a suitable date.
I fully understand that 'time' has interfered with any opportunity of my attending your committee before dissolution. This is extremely regrettable.
Please convey my best regards to the Committee Chairperson and members.
Yours sincerely,
Pp David McNarry MLA
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX
Email: peter.mccallion@niassembly.gov.uk
Tel: 028 9052 1864
Fax: 028 9052 1667
25 February 2011
Our Ref: CSD/009/2008/5/SK
Ms Margaret Sisk
Department for Social Development
Lighthouse Building
1 Cromac Place
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
Belfast BT7 2JB
Dear Ms Sisk,
Carer's Allowance Bill
At its meeting of the 24 February 2011, the Committee received a briefing from Carers NI on the Carer's Allowance Bill.
The Committee agreed that I should write to the Department to obtain the following:
I would be grateful if you could provide this information for the meeting of 10 March 2011.
Yours sincerely
Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Social Security Policy and Legislation Division,
Level 1
James House,
2-4 Cromac Avenue,
Gasworks Business Park,
Ormeau Road,
Belfast,
BT7 2JA
Tel: 028 9081 9984
Fax: 028 9081 9153
Mr Peter McCallion
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast Your ref: CSD/009/2008/5/SK
BT4 3XX Our ref: COR/234/2011
15 March 2011
Dear Peter
Your letter of 25 February 2011 to Margaret Sisk requested information in relation to (i) the costings prepared by the Department for Work and Pensions for a two-tiered version of Carer's Allowance, (ii) details of support services for young carers and (iii) provision for statutory respite for carers. I have been asked to reply.
In connection with the suggestion of a two-tiered benefit for carers, the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee asked the Department for Work and Pensions for an estimate of the costs of raising Carer's Allowance to the same level as Jobseeker's Allowance, the level of Employment and Support Allowance (support group) and State Pension level. The estimated costs, based on 2008 benefit rates, were set out in the Work and Pensions Committee's report in July 2008:
| To equal Jobseeker's Allowance at £60.50 pw | To equal State Pension at £90.70 pw | To equal Employment Support Allowance at £102.10 pw | |
| Year 1 | £149m | £573m | £730m |
| Year 2 | £174m | £652m | £830m |
| Year 3 | £227m | £738m | £935m |
| Year 4 | £240m | £831m | £1050m |
| Year 5 | £254m | £931m | £1175m |
Source: DWP
Support services for young carers in Northern Ireland
The Northern Ireland Regional Young Carers' Service had been commissioned by the Health and Social Care Board, through Children's Services Planning, and is being delivered by Action for Children NI in partnership with Newry and Mourne Carers' Association and Barnardo's NI. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety initially secured £0.5m to set up this regional service and funding has now been made recurrent. This service was formally launched in May 2010.
The services being offered both with and for young carers include:
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has advised that there is no statutory requirement to provide respite care for carers. Carers have a statutory right to an assessment of their needs and, following assessment, the Health and Social Care Trust must then decide whether or not it can provide services to meet those needs. There is no duty on a Trust to provide services, including respite, to carers. Decisions on provision of services are taken in line with other Trust priorities.
I hope the Committee finds this information helpful.
Yours sincerely
Anne McCleary
Social Security Policy and Legislation Division
cc. Billy Crawford
Margaret Sisk
Appendix 5
Department of Finance and Personnel – Options Paper for Committee for Finance and Personnel – 'Additional Rate Relief for Carers' – 6 January 2010
Department for Finance and Personnel – Correspondence to Committee for Finance and Personnel - 1 March 2010
Assembly Research and Library Services Paper for Committee for Finance and Personnel – 'Provision of Care Packages, with particular emphasis on domiciliary care packages for older people' – March 2010
Carers UK / University of Leeds Paper for Committee for Finance and Personnel –'Valuing carers – calculating the value of unpaid care'
Department for Finance and Personnel – Correspondence to Committee for Finance and Personnel - 29 November 2010
Assembly Research and Library Services Paper – 'Supplementary Research Briefing on Carers' - March 2011
Rating Policy Division DFP has been asked to examine the potential options which exist to allow increased rate relief to be provided to carers, particularly those carers who are pensioners.
This paper sets out the options which have been identified and examines the legislative, financial and operational implications of each.
Before examining the options available for providing additional rate relief for carers, it is worth reviewing firstly the support that currently exists within the rating system for this group.
Additional support for carers is already provided in several ways within the current Housing Benefit/Rate Relief system. Some of these are directly related to carers, while others could provide added support to this group of ratepayers, depending on individual circumstances.
The primary mechanism through which carers can qualify for enhanced relief is through the inclusion of a Carer Premium within the Housing Benefit/Rate Relief calculations. This premium increases the Applicable Amount within the calculations, which means that either the applicant is more likely to become eligible for relief or, if they already receive relief, will increase the size of any award.
This premium is available if either the applicant or their partner is looking after a disabled person and they receive Carer's Allowance. If both the applicant and their partner satisfy the qualifying condition two premiums can be awarded. Those who do not receive the Allowance due to it overlapping with another benefit but who have an underlying entitlement also qualify for the premium.
The second group of premiums which exist within the Housing Benefit/Rate Relief system which are relevant here are those which relate to the presence of a person with a disability in the household. The Disabled Child Premium, for example, is awarded to those households where there is a disabled child. A Disability Premium can also be awarded if there is a disabled adult in the household who receives one of a number of qualifying benefit (including Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, among others). In addition a Severe Disability Premium is also available under certain circumstances, while the Higher Pensioner Premium is open to those aged 80 or older.
On the other side of the Housing Benefit/Rate Relief calculation, it might also be noted that further provision is made for those who are carers and who are in employment. That is, a person eligible for the Carer Premium (or the Disability Premium or Severe Disability Premium) can also have £20 per week of their income disregarded when counting their total income for the assessment. Again, this would have the effect of increasing an applicant's chances of being awarded the relief or increasing the size of an award.
Finally, outside of the Housing Benefit/Rate Relief system, provision for carers has also been made within the recently introduced Lone Pensioner Allowance. This Allowance provides for a 20% reduction in rate bills for all those aged 70 or over who live on their own. It is not dependent on income. Although therefore intended for lone households, if there is a person living in the house who is there acting in a caring capacity, then they are disregarded for the purposes of the relief and the award is still granted.
Several options have been identified to provide added support to carers through the rating system. These are:
1. Enhance an existing premium within the Rate Relief scheme (the Carer Premium seems the most appropriate);
2. Enhance the earnings disregard within the Rate Relief scheme; and
3. Introduce a new relief scheme, specifically targeted at carers;
Each of these options is examined below (note that any of these options could be targeted at pensioners only or made available to all carers):
Under this option, the Carer Premium within the Rate Relief scheme would be increased by an agreed percentage amount.
Impact on target group: this would make it easier for carers to become eligible for rate relief (in other words, increasing the amount of income that they could have and still remain eligible) or, for existing claimants, would increase the amount of relief awarded. LPS estimate that there are 435 claimants of Carer Allowance in the owner occupied sector who are awarded Rate Relief or Housing Benefit. However, of these, some 334 are already in receipt of full support and so pay no rates. In addition, though, there would be those who have an underlying entitlement or who are not yet eligible and would become so. In total, the number likely to benefit in this sector is around 200.
In the rented sector, the total number who receive Housing Benefit and Carer Allowance is higher, at around 4,600. The NIHE are unable to say how many of these are in receipt of full Housing Benefit/Rate Relief, although, based on the LPS figures, it would be assumed that a large proportion of these would be. Again, taking into account those with an underlying entitlement and new claimants, the numbers benefitting could be 500 – 1000 in total.
The financial impact on the target group of the enhanced relief would depend on the scale of enhancement chosen, as well as the individual circumstances of each household. An increase in the premium of 20% would mean at most an extra £35 - £40 reduction in rate bill; while a 50% increase would reduce rate bills by at most around £90 per year. Even for those who would only qualify for a small amount of relief might have an added benefit if the relief was used as a passport for other government support.
The overall budgetary impact would be between £50,000 and £100,000 less in rate revenue per year. Because the changes would be made to the Rate Relief scheme rather than the national Housing Benefit system, the costs would be incurred as a loss to the DEL (Housing Benefit is AME-funded).
Legislative Impact: the change to level of the premium could be made through subordinate legislation. It would be similar to the amendment to the pensioner premium under the rate relief scheme (which was introduced as a result of the agreement at St. Andrews).
Operational Impact: LPS have suggested that the change in systems required to implement this option would be relatively straightforward and therefore should be achievable by April 2010. The cost would not be significant. The NIHE, on the other hand, have advised that it would be a fairly major undertaking for NIHE systems. Based on their experience of amending their system to increase the capital threshold under the Rate Relief scheme to £50,000, they estimate that the cost of implementing the change would be in the region of £100,000. In addition, the NIHE suggest that there is a risk to achieving the change in time for rate bills issuing in April 2010, because of the timescale involved and the other priorities facing the organisation around the turn-of-year.
There are wider administrative issues to consider, too, in linking relief for carers with the rating system. For example, for a carer to benefit for rate relief, they would need to be the person liable for rates. This might always be the case, particularly if the carer lives in one property but cares for a person in a different property.
This option would involve increasing the earnings disregard within the Rate Relief scheme, from the current weekly amount of £20.
Impact on target group: clearly, this option would only benefit those carers who are in paid employment. It would mean that less of their earnings would be counted as income in the calculations, again increasing the chances of being awarded relief or raising the level of award for existing claimants.
The numbers likely to benefit from this option are unknown, although are expected to be low, particularly for those in the pensioner group.
For individual ratepayers, increasing the disregard by an extra £10 per week would result in a reduction in rate bill of around £65 per annum. The overall impact on rate revenues would be minimal.
Legislative Impact: as with the enhancement to the Premium, a change to the earnings disregard could be introduced through subordinate legislation.
Operational Impact: This change would have the same operational implications as Option 1.
This option would involve introducing a completely new relief scheme for carers, separate from the existing Housing Benefit/Rate Relief system. The level of relief to be provided through the new scheme would have to be decided, as would a decision as to whether the scheme should be income-based or open to all (pensioner) carers.
Impact on target group: as noted above, the impact would depend on the chosen shape of the new scheme. A scheme similar to the Lone Pensioner Allowance might be selected, which would mean a fixed reduction in rate bill (e.g. 20% or 25%) for anyone deemed to be an eligible carer. Otherwise, an income based scheme could be taken forward, where the level of relief depends on the resources available to the household. The impact on households would depend on the nature of the chosen scheme. Further research and analysis would be required to support the decision around the future shape of any new scheme.
Legislative Impact: It is likely that any completely new relief scheme would require primary legislation, although further advice would be needed around this. Given the likely analytical, consultative and other pre-legislative requirements, it would take anything up to two years to have the necessary legislation in place.
Operational Impact: A new scheme would have significant operational and administrative implications for both LPS and the NIHE. A non means tested scheme, in which relief is awarded automatically to anyone who meets certain criteria, would require ongoing monitoring and policing to ensure that the relief is rightfully awarded. Eligibility for Carer Allowance would not provide a suitable passport since this is itself income dependent.
An income based scheme could involve replicating much of the architecture of the existing Housing Benefit/Rate Relief scheme, with all the resultant complexities and concerns around take up. It might also lead some to question why a new income-based scheme should be created when one (Housing Benefit/Rate Relief) already exists.
The costs of implementing and administering a new scheme would reflect the complexity involved. These would have to be compared with the number likely to benefit to consider whether they are proportionate or not.
The available options are far from ideal in terms of providing a cost effective way of delivering effective and broadly based support to pensioner carers.
Option 1 makes use of provision for carers which already exists within the Rate Relief scheme and enhances this so as to increase the support available. This would provide further help at a relatively low cost in terms of rate revenue foregone. Legislatively, it would be relatively straightforward to put in place. However, implementation of this option is not cost free and, indeed, the cost of doing so, particularly for the NIHE, could be considerable and would be likely to greatly exceed the amount of any additional awards made. There is also some doubt as to whether this could be achieved in time for April 2010. A further concern with this option is that the numbers who will eventually benefit might be very small, as the majority of those carers who qualify for Rate Relief already appear to be getting maximum support.
Option 2, which is also based on the current Rate Relief scheme, would share some of the drawbacks of option 1, while also being less effective in that it will only assist those who are in paid employment.
Option 3 looks beyond the confines of the Rate Relief scheme. However, attempting to have a scheme which does not award based on income presents its own challenges. While a non means tested scheme would undoubtedly be easier from an applicant's perspective, it throws up difficulties for the administering body, in terms of monitoring continued eligibility, combating fraud and so on. These will add to the complexities from an administrative point of view, inevitable increasing the costs involved. These would have to be compared with the numbers likely to benefit.
If the provision of further support for carers through the rating system is considered to have merit and to be a priority,, further research would be required around the economic status of those who are carers to help inform decisions as to whether any relief for carers should be targeted at those on low incomes (if the majority of carers were found to be in this circumstance) or whether it should be independent of income.
Department of Finance and Personnel
Assembly Section
Craigantlet Buildings
Stormont
BT4 3SX
Tel No: 02890 529147
Fax No: 02890 529148
email: Norman.Irwin@dfpni.gov.uk
Mr Shane McAteer
Clerk
Committee for Finance and Personnel
Room 419
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
1 March 2010
Dear Shane
I understand that last week there was a wide ranging and interesting debate on the subject of providing rate relief for carers, following evidence provided by Helen Ferguson of Carers NI and RPD officials. As you know the Minister has asked officials to consider the issue raised by the Committee and report back to him.
To help take this complex matter forward and in response to your request, set out below are some key points and important considerations that DFP officials wish to reiterate.
It would be helpful for the Committee to provide a clearly defined policy objective in relation to developing proposals.
Officials would also like the Committee to confirm whether all carers or older carers are the target group, because this issue was first brought to our attention as a consequence of the Private Member Bill put forward by Mr McNarry, which concerned carers of pensionable age. Carers allowance is paid without affecting other benefit entitlements until a person reaches pension age, whereupon it is counted as income for pension purposes. Mr McNarry's bill sought to redress this anomaly or at least mitigate its effects and therefore the preliminary work undertaken by the Department in relation to rate relief has been confined to carers of pension age.
To assist the Committee, if the figures provided by Carers NI are correct and 186,000 households in NI include a carer of any age, then a 10% rate rebate, could cost up to £14M a year, assuming it is not means tested (as proposed by Carers NI) and in the (unlikely) event that there is full takeup. Alternatively a 10% discount provided to those on Carer's Allowance would cost up to £4m, though it would appear from the evidence given to the Committee by Helen Ferguson that this would exclude many carers. Such measures would save eligible households on average around £80 a year in rates.
Once the scope of any such scheme is decided, then the adequacy of existing support mechanisms (or other possible alternatives) needs to be assessed Any proposed rating solution would have to be considered in terms of relative effectiveness. Furthermore, if rating proposals are to be looked at then they need to be examined in terms of their alignment with other support mechanisms, so that there is true additionality. It would not be a desirable outcome if a rates allowance (paid out of the Regional Rate or the DEL) led to lower benefits (which are usually AME funded). If the Minister wishes us to pursue this then it will require a cross cutting approach to developing policy, involving other departments.
Ease of administration (and therefore effectiveness and value for money) is a major and further consideration and the Minister is already on record on the issue (debate on Regional Rates Order 22nd February 2010):
"However, I do not want to give the impression that there is an easy solution. One of the messages that continually comes from LPS officials is that the greater number of reliefs that are introduced to the system, the more complicated it becomes, both for those who may benefit and for the administration of the system. Discussions have been held about how long a carer must be a carer, how individuals can be verified as carers, and how a system of additional administration, which checks, monitors and works out what benefits a person is entitled to, and when and how they are entitled to them, could be built up. It is, maybe, easier for long-term carers than for people who are caring for short periods. I imagine that those are the kinds of things that the Committee will want to tease out when it looks at any scheme that might be suggested. I do not want to give the impression that, just because I am sympathetic — probably many Members are sympathetic — it means that there is an easy solution to the issue or that there will not be costs involved in relation to rates collection, benefit payments, and monitoring and checking, etc".
Incidentally, as requested by the Committee, officials have written to NIHE asking them to re-examine and explain the relatively high cost of system changes to administer an increase in carers' premium under the existing rate relief scheme. I will advise you of their response in due course.
I hope you find this helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Norman Irwin
Provision of Care Packages, with particular emphasis on domiciliary care packages for older people
(March 2010)
Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of The Assembly and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.
3.1 Community Care Policy in Northern Ireland
3.2 NI Statistics (2008 and 2009) on Residential, Nursing Home and Domiciliary Care Packages
3.3 Trends in Care Provision in Northern Ireland
3.4 Regulation of Domiciliary Care Providers and Minimum Standards
3.5 Experiences of Domiciliary Care Providers and Service Users in Northern Ireland
3.6 Other Related Matters
3.6.1 Assessments and the Single Assessment Tool
3.6.2 Delayed Discharges, Rehabilitative and Intermediate Care
3.6.3 Paying for Domiciliary Care
4.1 England
4.2 Scotland
4.3 Republic of Ireland
Appendix 1 - Differences between statutory, voluntary & private providers
Appendix 2 - Differences between small and large providers
Individuals may need to avail of community care services during their lifetime for a variety of reasons including age, disability, physical or mental illness. As older people are the biggest single group of users of community health and social care services and research has identified that older people living alone are more likely to use social care services[1], this briefing will focus on care services for older people, with particular emphasis on domiciliary or home care. Older people may have a range of support needs "ranging from assistance with basic tasks of daily living (such as shopping or housework) through to a need for intensive care and support on a routine basis in their own homes or in a care setting"[2].
People First (1990) is the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's (DHSSPS) vision for community care in Northern Ireland with six core objectives, including the development of domiciliary care services to enable more people to continue to live in their own homes. Some eighteen years later, the DHSSPS told the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that "the aspirations of the policy remained valid but accepted that some of its aims had not been achieved"[3]. The PAC was of the view that there had been a failure to develop sufficient capacity in the domiciliary care sector to support the objectives of People First and that the challenge for the DHSSPS is to shift the balance of care towards the delivery of domiciliary care. The DHSSPS noted that it was working against a background trend of rising need for long term care and despite that was "working against that trend and maintaining a good performance" in relation to domiciliary care, pointing to a 32% increase in domiciliary care provision over ten years.[4]
The current DHSSPS targets regarding the delivery of community care needs are highlighted in Priorities for Action 2009-2010 (March 2009) under 'Priority 4: ensuring fully integrated care and support in the community'. The related Northern Ireland Executive PSA targets for the DHSSPS are as follows under PSA 18 (Deliver High Quality Health and Social Services), Objective 1 (promote independent living and a reduction in avoidable admissions to hospital)[5]:
Community Care services in the UK are care services that are arranged or provided by a local authority or social services department, mainly to adults who have care needs. Such care services or packages of care can include a place in a care home or services provided to allow individuals to remain living independently in their own homes, such as home care services, home helps, adaptations to the home, meals, and recreational and occupational activities. Home care services generally mean "help with personal tasks, for example, bathing and washing, getting up and going to bed, shopping and managing finances…someone coming to your home at agreed times…two or three times a day or even 24-hour care where necessary".[6]
In Northern Ireland these home care services are referred to as domiciliary care, often referred to as the traditional home help services, which the DHSSPS defines as "the range of services put in place to support an individual in their own home. Services may include routine household tasks within or outside the home, personal care of the client, and shopping. It excludes services such as day care, meals services, transport and equipment".[7] It is also described as "the personal care and the associated domestic services that are necessary to maintain an individual in an acceptable level of health, hygiene, dignity, safety and ease in their home"[8]. A full list of the duties appropriate to the home help service can be found in the DHSSPS Circular HSS (SS) 1/80[9]
The NISRA statistical bulletin describes Domiciliary Care Services as including the three key elements of (i) provision must be in or centred on the client's own home, (ii) include some definite manual activity and/or social emotional support, and (iii) must be wholly or partly funded by the Social Services Department and includes[10]:
Health and Social Care (HSC) Trusts in Northern Ireland carry out care management assessments to identify a person's needs and determine the best form of care to meet those needs. When domiciliary care is identified as the best form of care the HSC Trust organises the delivery of this care either by a statutory provider (operated by HSC Trusts) or by contracting an independent provider (may be voluntary or private sector) to do so.[11] During one survey week in September 2008 an estimated 23,553 persons were in receipt of publicly funded domiciliary care services and around 78% of service users were aged 65 and over (see section 3.2 for further statistics).[12] The five HSC Trusts are the dominant purchasers of domiciliary care in Northern Ireland and providers rely heavily on these Trusts to purchase their services.[13] In February 2009 the Health Minister, Michael McGimpsey, launched the Northern Ireland Single Assessment Tool (NISAT) to underpin the assessment process for the health and social care needs of older people in Northern Ireland (see section 3.6.1).[14]
Current community care policy flows from the DHSSPS People First document published in 1990 which stressed the importance of maintaining people in their own homes for as long as possible. The aim of the policy was to move away from the arrangements for public funding, which up until that point had contained a built-in bias towards residential and nursing home care, rather than services for people at home.[15] The Department noted at that time "people were still being inappropriately admitted to hospitals, residential care homes and nursing homes; people who have successfully completed rehabilitation and resettlement programmes are having to stay in hospital; domiciliary care services are uneven and sometimes poorly targeted; and packages of care are not being tailored appropriately to meet individuals' needs".[16]
The policy paper People First identified ways of addressing these deficiencies and proposed changes in the way community care was delivered and funded in Northern Ireland, including[17]:
In 2002, the DHSSPS published the Review of Community Care – First Report. In the report the Project Board set out a framework for the future work programme of the community care review incorporating projects relating to the objects of the People First policy paper. Of particular relevance here is Project 1 – Enabling people to live in their own homes. It was proposed that this project would build upon the examples of good practice found and examine how people can be maintained in their own homes or other community setting. The project was to comprise 3 elements[19]:
Research Note: An update on the progress of this project has been requested from the DHSSPS – to date there has been no response.
Age Concern Help the Aged NI noted that Personal Social Services (PSS) under the Elderly Programme of Care experienced the lowest percentage increase in terms of planned expenditure and activity from 2007/08 to 2008/09 (4.7% increase) compared to increases on PSS spending in family and childcare (9.2%), physical and sensory disability (9.5%), learning disability (13.2%) and mental health (19.1%).[20] They concluded that this spending is insufficient to meet the PSS needs of the ageing population of Northern Ireland and has resulted in "qualifying criteria being tightened" leading to "the present scenario where services are being withdrawn from older people with low and moderate needs".[21]
Within the Elderly Care POC, at 31st March 2009, there were 9,485 elderly people benefiting from residential care (31%) or nursing home care (69%) packages. This represents approximately 79% of the total nursing home care and residential care packages for all age groups in Northern Ireland. Over 80% (17,252) people in receipt of a home-help service were in the Elderly Care POC.[22] The statistics in Table 1 below are extracted from Tables 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of the DHSSPS Adult Community Statistics publication[23]:
| Trust | Residential and Nursing Home Care Packages – Total All Sectors (Statutory, Voluntary and Private) |
Home-Help Service – No. of Clients | Meals Service – No. of Clients | ||
| Residential Care | Nursing Home Care | Total | |||
| Belfast | 790 | 1464 | 2254 | 5282 | 1231 |
| Northern | 710 | 1552 | 2262 | 3180 | 992 |
| South Eastern | 693 | 1368 | 2061 | 2382 | 635 |
| Southern | 312 | 1244 | 1556 | 3286 | 649 |
| Western | 401 | 951 | 1352 | 3122 | 1060 |
| NI Total | 2906 | 6579 | 9485 | 17252 | 4567 |
Table 2 below outlines the number of clients (all ages) receiving domiciliary care services from the statutory sector, the independent sector or from both sectors during the survey week 20th-26th September 2009 and the survey week 21st –27th September 2008. During the survey week in 2009 HSC Trusts provided domiciliary care for 23,377 clients in Northern Ireland, similar to the number in 2008. Of this total 15,882 received services from the statutory sector and 10,590 from the independent sector. Between 2008 and 2009 the number of clients receiving domiciliary care services from the statutory sector decreased by 10% and the number receiving independent domiciliary care services increased by 8%.
| Trust | Statutory | Independent | Clients Receiving Domiciliary Care from both Sectors | Clients Receiving Domiciliary Care (excludes double counting) | ||||
| 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | 2009 | |
| Belfast | 5393 | 4883 | 2166 | 2579 | 1262 | 1248 | 6297 | 6214 |
| Northern | 3709 | 3453 | 927 | 1030 | 493(E) | 431 | 4636 | 4052 |
| South Eastern | 2344 | 1728 | 2459 | 2696 | 525 | 516 | 4278 | 3908 |
| Southern | 3299 | 3183 | 1686 | 1545 | 300 | 266 | 4685 | 4462 |
| Western | 2861 | 2635 | 2565 | 2740 | 1769 | 634 | 3657 | 4741 |
| NI Total | 17606 | 15882 | 9803 | 10590 | 4349 | 3095 | 23553 | 23377 |
(E) = Estimated based on the proportionate split for 2009
Table 3 below shows the number of clients receiving intensive domiciliary care services during the survey weeks in 2008 and 2009. Intensive service is defined as those receiving six or more visits and more than 10 hours during the survey week. During the survey week in 2009, 6630 clients received intensive domiciliary care services, accounting for 28% of all clients but 7% less than the number in 2008. The number of clients receiving intensive services from the statutory sector fell by 18% with the most significant decrease being in the Belfast HSC Trust which fell by 39% from the survey week in 2008.
| TRUST | Statutory | Independent | Total No. of Clients Receiving Intensive Domiciliary Care | |||
| 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | 2009 | |
| Belfast | 820 | 498 | 1081 | 1289 | 1755 | 1787 |
| Northern | 986 (E) | 913 | 231(E) | 214 | 1217 | 1127 |
| South Eastern | 292 | 181 | 990 | 1081 | 1239 | 1207 |
| Southern | 766 | 755 | 842 | 718 | 1603 | 1453 |
| Western | 371 | 298 | 572 | 448 | 1310 | 1056 |
| NI Total | 3235 | 2645 | 3716 | 3750 | 7124 | 6630 |
(E) = Estimated based on the proportionate split for 2009
Table 4 below outlines the client groups receiving intensive domiciliary care and indicates that in 2009 85% of such clients were aged 65 and over, with 15% of clients aged 18-64. Across HSC Trusts the proportion of clients aged 65 and over receiving intensive domiciliary care services ranged from 80% in the South Eastern HSC Trust to 87% in the Belfast and Western HSC Trusts.
| Client Group | 2008 | 2009 | ||
| Number | % of Total Clients | Number | % of Total Clients | |
| Aged 18-64 | 1120 | 16% | 1011 | 15% |
| Clients with a Physical Disability | 815 | 11% | 660 | 10% |
| Clients with a Learning Disability | 233 | 3% | 217 | 3% |
| Clients with Mental Health Needs | 49 | 1% | 123 | 2% |
| Clients with No Material Handicap | 23 | 0% | 11 | 0% |
| Aged 65 and Over | 6004 | 84% | 5619 | 85% |
| Total Clients | 7124 | 100% | 6630 | 100% |
NB: 0 values represent a percentage less than 0.5
Components may not add to totals due to rounding
Other information regarding service intensity[27]:
Table 5 below shows trends in the balance of care provision for those aged 65 and over. An analysis of this data since April 2002 by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) shows that the largest increase in care packages for those aged 65 and over (20%) has been in the nursing home sector, with residential care packages having only a marginal increase of two percent. Over the same timescale domiciliary care provision increased by 12%.
| 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | |
| Residential | 3216 | 3133 | 3139 | 3158 | 3099 | 3296 |
| Nursing | 5675 | 5773 | 5759 | 5476 | 5420 | 5709 |
| Total Institutional | 8891 | 8906 | 8898 | 8634 | 8519 | 9005 |
| Total Domiciliary | 4135 | 4501 | 3959 | 4173 | 4323 | 4637 |
| Total Packages | 13026 | 13407 | 12857 | 12807 | 12842 | 13642 |
| Domiciliary as a % of Total | 32 | 34 | 31 | 33 | 34 | 34 |
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | Trend | |
| Residential | 2959 | 3124 | 3151 | 3076 | 3031 | -6% |
| Nursing | 5305 | 6138 | 6050 | 6287 | 6345 | +12% |
| Total Institutional | 8264 | 9262 | 9201 | 9363 | 9376 | +5% |
| Total Domiciliary | 4895 | 4895 | 5112 | 5555 | 5464 | +32% |
| Total Packages | 13159 | 14157 | 14313 | 14918 | 14840 | +14% |
| Domiciliary as a % of Total | 37 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 37 | +5% |
In addition to those older people who meet the criteria for access to a care managed package, other older people receive lower levels of intervention such as meals service and home-help (see Table 1 above). Table 6 below shows a breakdown of these services as compiled by the NIAO. The figures in this table cannot be totalled because older people receiving a domiciliary care package may also be receiving home-help, for example, as a component of that package.
| 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | Trend | |
| Domiciliary Care Packages | 4323 | 4637 | 4895 | 4895 | 5112 | 5555 | 5464 | +26.4% |
| Home Help | 23963 | 23324 | 22983 | 21802 | 21719 | 21242 | 20247 | +15.5% |
| Meals Services | 4318 | 3775 | 3850 | 4361 | 4228 | 5678 | 6035 | +39.8% |
| Statutory Day Care | 1713 | 1832 | 1933 | 1923 | 1954 | 1950 | 2027 | +18.3% |
Research Note: An update on these 2006 trend figures has been requested from the DHSSPS – to date there has been no response.
Figures from the NIAO 2007 report show that the expenditure on domiciliary care services increased by 40% in the four years from £108.4m in 2002-03 to £147.3m in 2005-06. Using the NIAO data found in Table 5 above, over the same four years the number of domiciliary care packages (the most intensive community services), has increased by only 12%. The NIAO report concluded that this indicated that resources are increasingly being directed towards those with the most severe needs and levels of dependency, "the high levels of spending on more complex services reflects one of the principles underpinning… People First that 'services should concentrate on those with the greatest needs".[29]
Regarding this trend the NIAO concluded,
"While our data analysis has shown that advances have been made in translating the aspirations of People First into practice, further progress is needed to increase the reach of domiciliary care…a balance approach, not simply one focused on intensive care-managed packages. It will have to incorporate a view on how low-intensity services, including such elements as home-help, day care services, support accommodation, lunch clubs and meals-on-wheels are to be configured in the provision of domiciliary care services".[30]
In support of this conclusion the Public Accounts Committee noted its concern that "failure to address relatively lesser needs may result in a missed opportunity to prevent future crises or deterioration in independence. Minor interventions such as the provision of meals on wheels or day centre access can assist in preventing, or at least delaying, admission to hospital and/or residential nursing home".[31]
The Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (2003 Order) (Commencement No.4 and Transitional Provisions) Order (Northern Ireland 2007 brought into effect the requirement for all domiciliary care providers to register with the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). All such organisations (statutory, voluntary and private) were to have applied to be registered with the RQIA by 29th April 2008. Part III provides for the registration and inspection of establishments and agencies, including domiciliary care agencies, by the RQIA. It also provides powers to make regulations governing the conduct of establishments and agencies.
There are currently 260 offices of homecare/domiciliary care organisations registered with the RQIA.[32] Domiciliary Care Agencies are subject to one inspection per year as per The Domiciliary Care Agencies Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007, which came into force on 30th April 2007. Some of the specifics of the Regulations are as follows:[33] Regulation 5, provides that each agency must prepare a statement of purpose in relation to the matters set out in Schedule 1 and a service user's guide to the agency (regulation 6); Regulations 8 to 12 make provision about the fitness of the persons carrying on and managing an agency; and Regulations 13 to 30 make provision in relation to the conduct of agencies, in particular about the quality of services to be provided by an agency.
Article 38 of The Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 gave power to the DHSSPS to publish minimum standards that the RQIA must take into account in the regulation of establishments and agencies. The DHSSPS has developed minimum standards for domiciliary care agencies. There are 15 main standards, the detail of which can be found in the 2008 DHSSPS publication Domiciliary Care Agencies Minimum Standards.[34]
In 2008 a postal survey of domiciliary care providers registered with the RQIA was conducted by the DHSSPS seeking to assess domiciliary care providers in the context of regulations and minimum standards that the DHSSPS introduced (see sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 above). Results of the survey are based on the response received from 154 providers (75% of the eligible sample) of domiciliary care. Of the 154, 45% came from the voluntary sector, 27% from the statutory sector and 28% from the private sector. The key results of the survey are as follows[35]:
In total domiciliary care was provided to around 23,028 clients of which about 18,142 were aged 65 and over. 64% of service users were provided with domiciliary care on six or more occasions and 65% received more than 5 hours domiciliary care in the 7 days prior to the survey;
Care was provided to people with mental health problems, with learning difficulties, with sensory disabilities and with other physical disabilities in the 12 months prior to the survey. Three of these four client groups were provided with domiciliary care by over three fifths of providers: people with mental health problems (66%), people with learning difficulties (65%) and people with other physical disabilities (62%). Nearly two fifths (38%) of providers said they provided domiciliary care for people with sensory disabilities. Almost all (99%) providers reported providing domiciliary care to at least one of these client groups;
Nearly half (48%) of the providers said a member of staff had visited all new service users in their own homes in advance of service provision commencing in the 12 months prior to the survey. A further 31% said this had happened for some new service users. However, 21% said this had not happened. 70% of providers said they told service users the names of new domiciliary care workers before their first home visit in all cases. Less than one in ten (8%) said they did not do this.
Nearly four fifths (78%) of providers said all their service users had care plans, 18% said most of their service users had care plans, 4% said some of them had and 1% said none of them had. The majority (89%) of providers with care plans said they specified what services would be provided for the service user in all their care plans and 72% specified when the care plans would be reviewed;
Almost all (95%) providers said they had, in the 12 months prior to the survey, sought the views of their service users or their representatives about the domiciliary care services they receive, 72% of providers said they had made changes in response to these views and 28% said they had not;
Approximately one in three providers (31%) with a formal complaints procedure said they included an outline of the role of the RQIA in the procedure and a similar number (33%) said their complaints procedure was available in an appropriate form for a person who is blind or whose vision is impaired;
Just over a third (37%) of providers said they had their own occupational health services. A similar number (33%) said they arranged for staff to access external occupational health services. The other 30% said they did not provide their domiciliary care workers with any access to occupational health services; and
Nearly all providers (94%) said they had, in the 12 months prior to the survey, checked whether domiciliary care workers were providing the number of hours of domiciliary care they had been contracted to.
It appears that domiciliary care providers reported performing better in some areas than in others,
"almost all said they had formal procedures in place to be followed when service users' or their representatives made complaints about their care (99%), when abuse towards a service user was reported (100%), and, where applicable, when domiciliary care workers were handling money (98%) and medicines (99%) for service users. High proportions also said they sought feedback on their services from service users (95%), formally appraised their staff (94%) and provided all their staff with job descriptions (97%) and all their new staff with induction training (96%)". However, "only a small proportion of providers said they had informed service users about the RQIA (31%) or asked independent bodies to collect service users' views on their services (19%), informed prospective service users how to access inspection reports (24%) or made their complaints procedure available in a suitable format for service users who are blind or who have impaired vision (33%)".[36]
Results indicate there may be areas in which there are differences in the quality of domiciliary care delivered by voluntary, statutory and private providers. These differences are listed in Appendix 1. The majority of voluntary (84%) and statutory (59%) providers were small and the majority (62%) of private providers were large. It is, therefore, feasible that some of the differences between the sectors may be explained by the differences displayed between small and large providers (see Appendix 2 for details).
The NIAO commissioned Ipsos MORI to survey the experiences of 225 older people, selected from across the Trusts in Northern Ireland who are in receipt of a domiciliary care package, about the general quality of the care they received. The following issues from that survey are taken from the NIAO report, Older People and Domiciliary Care.[37]
With regard to general satisfaction, 22% of the 225 people had made a complaint about their domiciliary care services in the past; however occurrences of low satisfaction sat alongside high levels of overall satisfaction when individual service elements were examined. One of the key issues was flexibility of provision with 97% being content with the days on which services were received but 12% being dissatisfied with the times that home carers visited. 20% of respondents felt they did not receive enough visits in total and 16% reported that their care workers 'sometimes' or 'never' had time to carry out the tasks agreed in their care plan. However, in comparison, 21% indicated that their care workers stayed longer than allocated to complete tasks.
The following areas were highlighted by service users as needing special attention[38]:
Improved communication to ensure users have sufficient opportunity for feedback and to be consulted on service development, and appropriate ways for users to register complaint and comment;
Continuity and Timeliness of Care – Services that fail to deliver reliably or with continuity impact on the user's ability to continue to live independently;
Monitoring and Review – The survey indicated that adjustment of care packages through case review was poor – this can lead to either under or over-provision of services, leaving users at risk or creating dependence; and
Better Trained Staff – the survey emphasised the need for a high quality, user-centred care delivered by a well-trained workforce.
In 1991 a supplement to People First, the DHSSPS Community Care Policy (see section 3.1) entitled Care Management: guidance on assessment and the provision of community care was issued by the DHSSPS. This guidance pointed to the need for Trusts, as from April 1993, to assess the care needs of any person who appears to be in need of community care services and to decide, in the light of that assessment, whether they should provide, or arrange for the provision of any services. The guidance described care management and the assessment of individual need as being the cornerstone of the delivery of quality care and central to the implementation of People First.[39]
On 11th February 2009, The Health Minister, Michael McGimpsey, launched a new tool for assessing the health and social care needs of older people in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Single Assessment Tool (NISAT) is the first of its kind in the UK as although other regions of the UK have developed such single assessment process, they have used 'off-the-shelf' tools, whereas NISAT is tailor-made for Northern Ireland to underpin the assessment process. NISAT is designed to capture the information required for holistic, person-centred assessment of the older person and "will focus on a person's abilities and strengths rather than their disabilities. It will also reduce the stress by many older people who are frustrated when faced by a stream of well meaning professionals all wanting to ask them the same questions".[40]
The NISAT has seven components as follows[41]:
1. Contact Screening – on first contact with Health and Social Care carried out by any Health and Social Care professional or support staff;
2. Core Assessment – performed when needs are not clear-cut; requests for further assessment is made and a more holistic picture covering all aspects is required. This Core Assessment can be carried out by any health and social care professional;
3. Complex Assessment – this is carried out by Care managers or those co-ordinating complex needs when intensive long or short-term support is needed, co-ordination is required and a change of domicile is recommended;
4. Carer's Assessment – A standardised Carer's Assessment has also been developed to use in conjunction with the NISAR or as a stand-alone document;
5. Specialist Referral – This can be done by any Health and Social Care Professional and is for use when need for specialist referral is triggered;
6. Specialist Summary – This is done by any specialist practioner and is used when specialist recommendations are needed;
7. GP and Medical Practitioner Report – Done by any medical practitioner and is used for medical information and where referral to other specialists is required through a GP.
Further details on each of these components can be found on the DHSSPS website.[42] It is envisaged that NISAT will be introduced into practice by June 2010. To implement the project the DHSSPS gave funding for 5 Trust Implementation Officers and all are in post.[43] In 2011 the RQIA will be carrying out a review of the impact of the implementation of the NISAT.[44]
For certain patients in hospital a domiciliary care package must be agreed and available before the person can return home. As HSC Trusts are under pressure to speed up hospital discharge, the absence of such a care package can mean admission to a nursing or residential home. As mentioned already in Section 1 of this paper the current DHSSPS targets are as follows:
Target: from April 2008, 95% of patients with continuing complex care needs will be discharged from an acute setting within 48 hours of being declared medically fit, and no complex discharge will take longer than seven days – in all cases with appropriate community support. All other patients will be discharged from hospital within six hours of being declared medically fit.
Table 7 below shows the number of patients aged 65 and over experiencing a delayed discharge whilst waiting for a domiciliary care package in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Research Note: Up-to-date figures on delayed discharges have been requested from the DHSSPS but to date no response has been received.
| 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | |
| Domiciliary Care | 128 | 87 | 104 |
| Institutional Care | 246 | 185 | 149 |
| Not Specified | 34 | 37 | 27 |
| Total | 408 | 309 | 280 |
| % waiting more than 3 weeks | 59% | 64% | 48% |
| % waiting more than 2 months | 25% | 30% | 19% |
The NIAO noted a general decrease in the number of delayed discharges but that the issue still remained a problem as at March 2006, particularly in the Northern Board Trusts where almost half the delays (44%) were for more than 7 weeks and of all the Trusts at that time Causeway had the highest number of delayed discharges with 54% delayed by more than 7 weeks. By contrast, Craigavon and Banbridge Trust at that time had no delayed discharges due to its policy of an enhanced intermediate care scheme. The DHSSPS advised the NIAO that, at that time, the Northern Board acknowledged that its balance of investment between hospital and community based services was wrong and that it was putting place a programme of reform to address these issues.[46]
Intermediate care schemes can assist timely discharge of older people from an acute setting and "come into play at the interface between health and social care…the movement of an older person from an acute hospital setting for a specific period of time". In addition to intermediate care facilities, rehabilitative support provided to older people can help to sustain independent living, for example, Homefirst Community Rehabilitation and Stroke Service provided a service to 877 discharged patients during 2005 and prevented admission to care of 346 people; and Foyle HSS Trust's Supported Early Discharge scheme saved 1,131 bed days in an 18 month period.[47] The NIAO highlighted that "evidence suggests that the domiciliary care needs of many older people have been enhanced by proactive support to assist their recovery and recuperation. However the scope and range varies across the Trusts…achieving a shift towards more preventative and rehabilitative provision presents a challenge which needs to be carefully planned and will take time".[48]
A Review of UK literature of 21 studies on delayed hospital discharges and older people identified a combination of factors contributing to delayed discharges. These included delays in care assessments/funding or the availability of care home placements as well as internal hospital factors including timing of ward rounds by consultants, delays in obtaining take-home medication and delays in transport home. The main area reported in terms of service provision was the need for more rehabilitation services[49].
Table 8 below shows that the number of people in the community waiting for a community care package had fallen from 767 at end March 2004 to 190 at end of September 2006.
(Research Note: Up-to-date figures have been requested from the DHSSPS but to date no response has been received.)
| 31 March 2004 | 31 March 2005 | 31 March 2006 | 30 September 2006 | |
| Domiciliary Care | 503 | 688 | 399 | 98 |
| Institutional Care | 216 | 175 | 84 | 23 |
| Not Specified | 48 | 56 | 55 | 69 |
| Total | 767 | 919 | 538 | 190 |
| % waiting less than 12 weeks | 33% | 31% | 40% | 53% |
| % waiting more than 12 weeks | 67% | 69% | 60% | 47% |
The NIAO highlighted that half of those waiting in the community had been waiting 12 or more weeks and that waiting lists at 30 September 2006 were highest in the Causeway Trust, with the majority of clients waiting over 12 weeks.
The financial assessment of a person's ability to pay for home care services should be made after a needs assessment has been carried out and after the HSC Trust has decided whether or not to provide any services and ability to pay should not influence the decision on whether to provide services.[51] A client may also be receiving health services which are provided free and there should only be charges for the social services provided. The HSC Trust can charge for home care services although it is not obliged to do so and there is no national scale of charges, although any charges should follow any Departmental guidance.
The assessment of charges for the home-help service in Northern Ireland are found in the DHSSPS Circular HSS (SS) 1/80 (as revised in April 2007). In the assessment of the charge, account will be taken of the income of the person in need and his or her spouse or civil partner in accordance with a set of provisions, including the treatment of Capital Resources. The provisions also include income that it is to be wholly disregarded – attendance allowance, disability living allowance, independent living fund payments and any child element of child tax credits. The service is provided free of charge to persons assessed in need aged 75 or over and those in receipt of income support or Family Credit. Full details on the calculation of contributions from the client towards the home help service are found in DHSSPS Circular HSS (SS) 1/80[52].
In Northern Ireland a Trust has a duty to provide direct payments to allow people with an assessed need for community services to choose who provides these services. People with an assessed need will include a disabled person, an older person, a carer, or parent of a disabled child. A person using a direct payment has to arrange the services they require, however an individual can choose not to accept a direct payment and have the services arranged by the Trust. Local organisations, for example, The Centre for Independent Living offer support for people in receipt of direct payments. A person can employ anyone who is eligible to work in the UK, usually with the exception of close relatives living in the same household, however in exceptional circumstances where the Trust considers that it is in the best interests of the person being cared for, direct payments can be allowed for relatives living in the same house.[53]
In 1999 the Royal Commission on Long Term Care recommended that the best method of pooling the financial risk of long-term care was that the costs of personal care services for older people should be met by the state from general taxation, but that board and lodging fees paid in care homes and the practical help people received in their own home should continue to be means-tested. The principle behind this was adopted in Scotland in 2002 but not in England.[54] The majority of people in England in receipt of home care receive it through local social services, which assess need for help according to certain eligibility criteria. Most Councils with Adult Social Services Responsibilities (CASSR) contract out the supply of home care services to the independent sector, which now provides over three quarters of public funded home care. Providers in England are regulated against standards and from April 1st 2009 this regulation was taken over by the Care Quality Commission which replaced the Commission for Social Care Inspection.[55]
The rules that determine the charges made for care provided in an individual's own home are set by local councils in England but must comply with the Fairer Charging guidelines published by the Department of Health in 2003. However, there is a big variation in funding systems as a small number of councils provide free services, most use a means-test to determine user charges and others charge a flat rate. A service user with assets above £22,250 (2008/09) is usually asked to pay the full cost of the care plan. NHS nursing care is provided free in one's own home and since 2001 the NHS has contributed to the cost of registered nursing care for care home residents. Separately from social care, the UK disability-related benefits (Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance) have national eligibility rules and are not means-tested.[56]
With regard to provision of services for certain groups leaving hospital the non means-tested services of NHS Continuing Care are used in England. To be eligible for Continuing Care care needs must be complex, substantial and have arisen as the result of disability, accident or illness.[57] Following assessment there are a number of possible options included to meet continuing needs including support at home with a care package of health and social care, sheltered housing, a care home with or without nursing care, admission for NHS continuing (long term) care or care in a rehabilitation centre. Continuing Care can include both health and social care. If an individual meets their strategic health authority's criteria for NHS Continuing Care, the NHS will pay for all the care needs.[58]
The Department of Health has made self-directed support a key focus for the development of health and social care services since the mid-1990s. In the social care context the personalisation agenda of the Adult Social Care System is outlined in the NHS, HM Government publication Putting People First: A shared vision and commitment to the transformation of Adult Social Care (Dec 2007), with the aim of "ensuring older people, people with chronic conditions, disabled people and people with mental health problems have the best possible quality of life and the equality of independent living".[59] The key elements of this personalised Adult Social Care System are[60]:
Direct Payments, mentioned in the list above, were first introduced in 1996 and are when individuals are given money in lieu of social care services which they are then able to spend on the support they feel they most need. Individuals can arrange their own care through and agency or employ a personal assistant.[61]
In 2007-08 Individual budgets were first trialled in 13 English local authorities and are a way of combining funds from different statutory sources such as council social care funds, Supporting People funding, Independent Living Fund and Disabled Facilities Grant. The Budget collects together the various income streams into a budget to allow the individual to spend the total amount on the support they feel they most need. Direct Payments and Individual Budgets have not been popular with older people, however there are examples of good practice which have led to increasing the number of users. For example, Kent County Council provides the 'direct payment' pre-loaded onto a Visa card and the money can then be spent on services chosen by the client and paid for over the telephone, online or by withdrawing cash.[62]
Personal Budgets, one of the ambitions of Putting People First, have been devised based on the experience of direct payments and individual budgets and can be taken by service users in a variety of ways:
Personal budgets can be deployed in a number of ways, by an individual, by a care manager, by a Trust, as an indirect payment to a third party or held by a service provider. People can use their budgets to access a wide range of services, including traditional social care, as long as the service meets agreed outcomes and is legal.[63]
The Social Care Institute for Excellence concludes[64],
"The value of personal budgets is widely recognised, alongside the need for the support, advocacy and brokerage service infrastructure, including user-led organisations…Emerging findings from the UK are reflecting what the international research suggests: that there is no single personal budget scheme blueprint suitable for all adults needing social care support. They are one approach to personalising adult social care and need to be responsive to individual requirements."
With regard to Home Care Statistics for England the following information is extracted from Community Care Statistics 2008 Home Care Services for Adults, England, published in March 2009. During the survey week in September 2008:
Tables 9 and 10 below are extracted from the publication[65]:
105,000 households received intensive home care in 2008, accounting for 32 per cent of all households. This represents a 2 per cent increase on the 2007 figure and a 14 per cent increase on the 2004 figure (intensive home care is defined as more than 10 contact hours and 6 or more visits during the week). Since 1999, there has been a 28 per cent increase in the number of households receiving more than 5 contact hours and 6 or more visits. In 2008, 54 per cent of households who received home care received more than 5 hours of care and 6 or more visits compared to 52 per cent in 2007.[68]
With regard to the future of community care in England, in July 2009, HM Government published the green paper Shaping the Future of Care Together with its proposals for reforming the care and support system for adults in England. Reform is deemed necessary due to the fact that the demand for health and care is set to increase significantly due to increased life expectancy generally and the fact that younger adults with physical and learning disabilities are surviving longer. In addition the social care system in also extremely complex with a large number of funding streams.[69] It is beyond the scope of this particular paper to go into detail regarding the proposed reforms, however a short summary of the three proposed funding models that the Government believes could meet its criteria for a National Care Service are outlined below[70]:
Partnership model – In this system, everyone who qualified for care and support from the state would be entitled to have a set proportion, for example, a quarter or a third of their basic care and support costs paid for by the state. People who were less well-off would have more care and support paid for, for example, two-thirds, while the least well-off people would continue to get all their care and support for free.
Insurance model – In this system, everyone would be entitled to have a share of their care and support costs met, just as in the Partnership model. But this system would go further to help people cover the additional costs of their care and support through insurance, if they wanted to. The state could work more closely with the private insurance market, so that people could receive a certain level of income should they need care and support. Or the state could create its own insurance scheme. If people decided to pay into the scheme, they would get all their basic care and support free if they needed it. People could pay in several different ways, in instalments or as a lump sum, before or after retirement, or after their death if they preferred.
Comprehensive model – In this system, everyone over retirement age who had the resources to do so would be required to pay into a state insurance scheme. Everyone who was able to pay would pay their contribution, and then everyone whose needs meant that they qualified for care and support from the state would get all of their basic care and support for free when they needed it. It would be possible to vary how much people had to pay according to what they could afford. Alternatively, if people wanted to be able to know exactly how much they would have to pay, most people other than those with lower levels of savings or assets could be required to pay a single, set figure, so that people knew how much they would have to save for. The insurance payment would help people to protect their wealth and the value of their homes.
As a first step towards establishing this new National Care Service the Government introduced the Personal Care at Home Bill on 25th November 2009. The aim of the Bill is to provide for those with the greatest care needs to be offered free personal care at home. Existing powers allow local authorities in England to provide certain community care services free of charge for up to six weeks. The Bill will remove this time limit in respect of personal care at home for those in the greatest need. The Government estimates that the Bill would help around 400,000 people with care needs and guarantee free personal care for the 280,000 people with the greatest need. The Bill is currently in Report Stage in the House of Lords and further line by line examination will continue on 17th March 2010.[71]
Although the Bill was generally welcomed by groups representing the elderly and disabled, there has been criticism over the lack of information on how the policy would be funded and who it would benefit, and also over the timing of the Bill given that it seems to cut across all of the options outlined in the green paper described above for the National Care Service.[72]
In Scotland, the basis of recent community care stems from the policy document 'Modernising Community Care: An Action Plan' which was published by The Scottish Office in 1998 in response to concerns about the way services were being managed and delivered. It aimed to secure better and faster results for people by focusing on them and their needs and sought more effective joint working and partnerships between the statutory sector and the voluntary sector.[73] Chapter three of the policy covers Caring for people at home and notes that "one of the central aims of our community care policy is to allow people to be cared for at home, or in homely surroundings. Home-based care, combined with suitable housing, is what most people and those who care for them prefer".[74]
The action plan laid out that home care services in Scotland must provide[75]:
The Scottish Office expected to see five changes in support to people at home across the social work, health and housing sectors;
Currently Local Authorities have a duty for first undertaking community care assessment for those people presenting to them and asking for one. The local authority is then responsible for developing packages of care, planning services and commissioning services. In doing so, the local authority will use their own services, those of the private sector and those of the voluntary sector.[76] The majority of service users receive home care provided by in-house teams but the use of the independent sector is growing. In 2009 38% of publicly funded home care was provided solely by the independent sector, with 11% a combination of local authority and independent sector and 51% provided solely by local authorities.[77]
Individuals have the right to request self-directed support (direct payments) to enable them to pay for their own care from an agency or to employ a home care worker. To receive direct payments, an individual must have been assessed by their local authority as needing community care services. The local authority then makes a payment to the individual who can create their own care package. Councils have a duty to offer direct payments if a person is eligible, but the person concerned does not have to take it.[78]
In Scotland personal care provided by a local authority is free to those over 65 years of age since the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002. Personal Care is defined as anything done for an individual of a personal nature such as personal hygiene; continence management, food and diet, problems of immobility, counselling and support, simple treatments, and personal assistance. If the care an individual is assessed as needing does not fall into personal care then there may be a charge for that care.[79] The Local Authority Social Work Department may charge for providing some services, however they must make information about the charges available in a Charging Policy. After a care needs assessment an individual must be given full information on charges for any chargeable services, however the exact amount to be paid by an individual will depend on the outcome of a financial assessment[80]. A Financial Assessment will look at an individual's own income and savings and the Local Authority will make a decision about how much they are able to contribute towards paying for the services.[81]
The Scottish Commissioner for the Regulation of Care is the national regulator of care services and inspects care at home and housing support providers according to certain standards. In its most recent report on the quality of care services, it found that people who receive care at home often express a high level of satisfaction with the service.[82]
In Scotland an estimated 68,334 people were receiving a homecare service provided or purchased by a local authority in the first week of April 2009, of those 44,660 older people were in receipt of free personal care. As with Northern Ireland and England the pattern is one of increasingly intensive packages of care for those most in need with on average, households receiving 9.5 hours of home care. In 1999 the average was 5.1 hours. Gross expenditure by local authorities on adult home care in 2005-06 was £498 million. Around £224 million was spent on free personal care for home care clients, which is about 73% of total net expenditure on publicly funded home care.[83]
Table 11 below shows the Age, Client Group and Gender of Clients Receiving Home Care Services. Approximately 77% of clients receiving home care services provided or purchased by local authorities were people with physical disabilities and 80% of all clients were 65 years or over
With regard to the level of home care services provided, 30% of home care clients received at least 10 hours of service provided or purchased by a local authority in 2009. This percentage has gradually increased over the last 10 years from 11% in 1998 to 30% in 2008 and 2009. The number of clients receiving less than 4 hours has decreased over the same period from 60% to 39%. Table 12 below shows the number of home care clients by level of service received in 2009.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) in the Republic of Ireland has responsibility for the delivery of public health, community and home care supports. The range of services provided to support those who could continue to live independently as an alternative to residential care is being expanded by the HSE. Part of this expansion is the Home Care Support Scheme (also known as the Home Care Support Package) which is an administrative scheme that evolved from a series of pilots over the past five years or so. The scheme appears to be at a relatively early stage as it is not yet a national scheme nor established in law, therefore no individual has an automatic right to the scheme. There are currently no national guidelines regarding the scheme and each HSE Administrative area has responsibility for its operation in that area, for example if services provided directly by the HSE or by voluntary groups or other organisations.[86] The main priority of the Home Care Support Scheme is older people living in the community or those who are in-patients in acute hospitals at risk of admission to long term care but it is also available to younger chronically sick people and others who could continue to live at home provided they had adequate supports.[87]
Unlike the developments in Northern Ireland with the single assessment tool, there is currently no standard assessment of the needs of people who apply for this Scheme. In the majority of cases a public health nurse will assess care needs and determine with the client and their family how these needs can best be met. Services may be provided by the HSE directly, by voluntary and community organisations on behalf of the HSE or in some instances a client may employ a private carer or home help service. In broad terms the services provided are those of nurses, home care attendants, home helps and the various therapies, including physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Support under the scheme may be worth €350-500 per week in respect of each client.[88]
The PA Consulting Group was commissioned by the Department of Health and Children to carry out an evaluation of the delivery of Home Care Packages between 2006 and 2008. . The evaluation involved a review of nationally available data and an in-depth analysis of 999 Home Care Package recipients from eight Local Health Offices (LHO). Some of the main findings are now highlighted and are taken directly from the Executive Summary of the Report[89]. As with domiciliary care throughout the UK, the majority of clients are older people, with (77%) of the Home Care Packages (HCP) for those over 75 years of age and 38% were over 85 years of age. Assistance with washing and dressing was the most common dependency identified and the majority of HCP involved two or more service elements such as physiotherapy and home help. From the recipient files surveyed two clear categories of HCP emerged:
Figure 1 below shows the variation in the number of Home Care Package recipients per 1,000 population over 65 by LHO 2006-2008
The evaluation points to a number of key strengths in the HCP delivery model:
There are several issues identified as constraining the delivery of HCPs:
With regard to funding, at the time of publication of the evaluation, the ring-fenced funding totalled €120million per year. Based on the recipient file survey data, the average weekly value of a Home Care Package is €318.00 per recipient. However the average values range from €497.40 in Galway to €128.70 in Donegal. The higher cost in Galway is attributed to the fact that it includes costs of mainstream services also. The evaluation noted that the practice of attributing costs should be consistent across LHOs.
Although the social security system is uniform throughout the UK, the care system with which it closely interacts is subject to significant regional variation,
"consequently people with similar levels of need in neighbouring local authorities can be variously eligible or ineligible for social care and receive different levels of social care support. In contrast, because the social security system is uniform…these same people do not differ in their eligibility for social security benefits that support disability and care such as Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance and Carers Allowance".[91]
"England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can each determine their own policies, resourcing arrangements (including level of charges and co-payments) and eligibility criteria for social care".[92]
'Age Concern Help the Aged NI'[93] reported in One Voice – Shaping our Aging Society in Northern Ireland that they have still to witness a significant shift away from institutional care for older people as in ratio terms the proportion of those receiving care in residential or nursing homes still exceeds those receiving a domiciliary care package, accounting for around 59% of those in the Elderly Programme of Care.[94] They have commented that policy directed towards providing care in the home will not lead to improved outcomes for older people if taken in isolation, therefore it must "be viewed as sitting closely with policies relating to housing, community safety and transport, to name a few…quality of care provision and appropriate levels of care are also fundamental factors to consider when analysing outcomes for the older population".[95]
The organisation notes that older people have a spectrum of care needs and these will only be met by a range of support including residential care as there are occasions when institutional care will continue to be the most appropriate form for an individual. There is also concern that in recent years there has been a shift away from low and moderate levels of care provision with qualifying criteria being tightened and domiciliary care resources focused on those with high levels of need to the exclusion of those with less intensive care needs.[96]
The NIAO noted that the picture that emerged from its review of domiciliary care in Northern Ireland is one of gradual improvement in the reach of domiciliary care packages. However in terms of a shift away from institutional care "progress has been static in recent years due to the continuing pressure of increasing nursing home placements. At the same time, while more older people are now receiving domiciliary care packages, the tighter targeting of support means that a higher proportion of domiciliary care is absorbed by those with higher-level needs". The NIAO also stated that it believed there was "still a pressing agenda of change required to further ensure that services are driven by what really matters most to older people"[97].
Differences between statutory, voluntary & private providers
(directly extracted from pages 27-29 of the publication)
The sectors did not differ significantly in how they said they treated new or prospective service users in all aspects other than whether a member of staff visited new service users in their own homes before they were provided with any domiciliary care services. Significantly more voluntary (32%) than private (10%) providers said they had not visited any new service users before commencing services in the 12 months before the survey.
When introducing service users to domiciliary care workers for the first time significantly more statutory than voluntary providers reported providing at least some service users with the names of the new domiciliary care workers and with the names of the staff members responsible for the new domiciliary care workers before the first home visit. All (100%) statutory providers said they gave their service users the names of new domiciliary care workers in at least some cases compared to less than nine in ten (88%) voluntary providers. All (100%) statutory providers indicated they had provided the names of staff members responsible for new domiciliary care workers in at least some cases. Whereas, nearly a tenth (9%) of voluntary providers said they had not provided these names in any instances.
Significantly more voluntary (87%) than private providers (61%) said all their current service users had a written care plan. Furthermore, significantly more voluntary (82%) than private providers (55%) said they had specified in all their care plans when the care plans would be reviewed. Nearly all voluntary providers (93%) said they had prepared their care plans in consultation with all their current service users or their representatives. This was significantly more than for both statutory (68%) and private (71%) providers. On the other hand, significantly more private (95%) than voluntary (63%) providers said they had provided at least some of their service users with their care plans before they provided them with services. In addition, significantly more private (94%) than voluntary providers (72%) stated they had specified telephone numbers that could be used to contact them outside of normal working hours in at least some of the care plans. Furthermore, significantly more private (100%) than voluntary (71%) or statutory (63%) providers said they specified in at least some of their care plans when care workers would arrive and leave service users' homes.
The sectors did not significantly differ in the proportion of providers who said they had sought the views of service users or their representatives about the domiciliary care services they received. However, they did differ in how they described attempting to obtain these views. Voluntary providers (71%) were significantly more likely than statutory providers (31%) to say they had asked for service users' views through the use of paper questionnaires in the 12 months prior to the survey. Private providers (78%) were significantly more likely than both voluntary (35%) and statutory (33%) providers to say they had tried to ascertain service users' views by interviewing them or their representatives for their views.
Significantly more voluntary (30%) than private providers (7%) said they had asked an independent provider or person to seek service users' views for them. Significantly more private than statutory providers said they had allowed their service users input whilst planning their services. Just over seven in ten (71%) private providers reported having asked all service users when would be the most convenient time for domiciliary care workers to visit their homes, whereas, less than two in five (38%) statutory providers said they did this.
Significantly more voluntary (88%) than statutory providers (64%) said they had supplied their formal complaints procedure in written form to every service user or their representative. However, private providers (51%) were significantly more likely than voluntary providers (23%) to say they had included an outline of the role of the RQIA in their complaints procedure. Additionally, significantly more private (66%) than voluntary (31%) or statutory (24%) providers said they included contact details for the RQIA. Statutory providers (54%) were significantly more likely than private providers (17%) to say their complaints procedure was available in an appropriate form for people who were blind or had impaired vision.
Statutory, voluntary and private providers differed in whether they provided their domiciliary care workers with access to occupational health services. Almost all (95%) statutory providers reported providing domiciliary care workers with access to occupational health services. This was significantly more than the 77% of voluntary providers who did the same. Furthermore, both statutory and voluntary providers were significantly more likely than private providers (30%) to report providing any type of access. The sectors also differed in how they catered for their domiciliary care workers to access occupational health services. The vast majority (90%) of statutory providers said they had their own occupational health services. This is significantly more than the one in five (22%) voluntary providers and the one in twenty (5%) private providers who said they had their own occupational health services. Significantly less private than voluntary providers reported having in house occupational health services. Significantly more voluntary (55%) than statutory (5%) or private (25%) providers said they arranged for their domiciliary care workers to access external occupational health services.
A fifth (20%) of private providers who had domiciliary care workers working towards relevant qualifications said they had given any of them paid time off to study during the 12 months prior to the survey. This was significantly less providers than in the voluntary (54%) and statutory (69%) sector. Whilst private providers were the least likely to say they had given staff study leave, they were significantly more likely than voluntary providers to report having provided their employees with training. Almost all (90%) private providers and two thirds (67%) of voluntary providers said they had provided all their domiciliary care workers with training in lifting and moving service users safely. More than four fifths (81%) of private providers and one in two (50%) voluntary providers said they had provided all their employees with training in operating special equipment safely.
Almost all (98%) private providers said they had kept written records of care provided in at least some of their service users' homes. Significantly less voluntary providers (82%) said they did this.
This section details differences in the responses given by providers with up to 50 service users (small providers) and those with 51 or more (large providers).
Significantly more small (92%) than large providers (52%) said all their service users had care plans. Small providers were also significantly more likely to say they prepared their care plans in consultation with the service users or their representatives. More than nine tenths (91%) of small providers reported having consulted service users in all cases compared to just over three fifths (62%) of large providers. However, large providers were significantly more likely to provide their service users with their care plans before they commenced delivery of services. Nine in ten (90%) large providers said they had provided care plans to service users or their representatives before providing them with any services in at least some cases compared to two in three (67%) small providers. The information included in all care plans varied with the size of the provider. Small providers were more likely than their larger counterparts to say they had specified in the care plans when the care plans would be reviewed. The vast majority (86%) of them said they included a review date in all care plans compared to less than half (46%) of the large providers. On the other hand, large providers were more likely than smaller ones to say they had specified when domiciliary care workers would arrive and leave the service user's home. Nearly all (92%) large providers indicated they had included these times in at least some of their care plans compared to just over two thirds (68%) of small providers. Larger providers were also more likely to say they had specified the telephone numbers that could be used to contact them outside of normal working hours. Almost all (96%) large providers stated they had included these telephone numbers in at least some of their care plans compared to just over three quarters (77%) of small providers.
Small and large providers differed in how they said they introduced domiciliary care workers to service users for the first time. Small providers were significantly more likely to say they had provided the name of the domiciliary care worker and information on how service users could contact the domiciliary care worker before the first home visit. More than four fifths of small providers said they gave service users the names of new domiciliary care workers (88%) and information on how they could contact new domiciliary care workers (81%) in all cases. In contrast, approximately two fifths of large providers reported having provided relevant names (43%) and contact information (44%) to all their service users.
Small providers were significantly more likely to say they provided the domiciliary care workers they employed with access to occupational health services. Four fifths (80%) of small providers reported either having their own occupational health services or arranging for staff to access external occupational health services compared to just over half (52%) of large providers.
Whether providers provided their domiciliary care workers with training varied with size. The vast majority (91%) of large providers said they had provided all their domiciliary care workers with training in lifting and moving service users safely compared to less than two thirds (64%) of small providers. Additionally, more than four in five (83%) large providers compared to one in two (51%) small providers said they had provided training in operating special equipment safely to all of their domiciliary care workers.
Small and large providers did not differ significantly on whether they kept a written record in service users' homes of the care that had been provided. Nevertheless, small providers were significantly more likely than large providers to record any contact with the service user's representative or carer about matters regarding the health or well-being of the service user in these written records. Almost all (96%) small providers said they did this as standard practice compared to nearly four fifths (79%) of large providers. Conversely, large providers were more likely to say they recorded the arrival and departure times of every visit by domiciliary care workers. Most (86%) of them said they recorded these comings and goings as standard practice whilst just over three fifths (63%) of small providers said they did this.
[1] Meeting Care Needs in the Community, Help the Aged Policy Statement 2007, page 2
[2] Meeting Care Needs in the Community, Help the Aged Policy Statement 2007, page 2
[3] Report into Older People and Domiciliary Care, Public Accounts Committee, Northern Ireland Assembly, February 2008, paragraph 10
[4] Report into Older People and Domiciliary Care, Public Accounts Committee, Northern Ireland Assembly, February 2008, paragraph 12
[5]Building a Better Future, Northern Ireland Executive, Programme for Government 2008-2011, Annex One, PSA Framework
[6] Citizens Advice Bureau, Advice Guide - Community Care,
www.adviceguide.org.uk/nireland/your_family/family/community_care.htm
[7] Domiciliary Care Services for Adults in Northern Ireland (2008), NISRA, 7th May 2008, page 2
[8] Survey of Domiciliary Care Providers Northern Ireland 2008, DHSSPS, NISRA, (September 2009), page 3
[9] http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/home_help_circular_-_2009_-_pdf.pdf
[10] Survey of Domiciliary Care Providers Northern Ireland 2008, DHSSPS, NISRA, (September 2009), Technical Notes, page 10
[11] Survey of Domiciliary Care Providers Northern Ireland 2008, DHSSPS, NISRA, (September 2009), page 3
[12]An Overview of the UK Domiciliary Care Sector, UK Home Care Association Summary Paper, December 2009, Section 7
[13]An Overview of the UK Domiciliary Care Sector, UK Home Care Association Summary Paper, December 2009, Section 7
[14] DHSSPS Press Release, 11 February 2009
[15] People First, Community Care in Northern Ireland for the 1990s, DHSS, 1990, paragraph 1.9
[16] People First, Community Care in Northern Ireland for the 1990s, DHSS, 1990, paragraph 2.39
[17] People First, Community Care in Northern Ireland for the 1990s, DHSS, 1990, paragraph 1.15
[18] Tonks, A. (1994), Community Care in Northern Ireland: a promising start, British Medical Journal, 308, 839-842
[19] Review of Community Care, First Report, DHSSPS, April 2002, pages 71 -72
[20] One Voice, Shaping our Ageing Society in Northern Ireland (2009), Section – Government Spending
[21] One Voice, Shaping our Ageing Society in Northern Ireland (2009), Section – Outcomes for Older People
[22] DHSSPS Adult Community Statistics 1st April 2008 – 31st March 2009, Community Information Branch, NISRA, Key Points, Elderly Care POC, page 31
[23] Tables 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 - DHSSPS Adult Community Statistics 1st April 2008 – 31st March 2009, Community Information Branch, NISRA, Key Points, Elderly Care POC, pages 33-35
[24] Information extracted directly from Domiciliary Care Services for Adults in Northern Ireland (2009), DHSSPS, NISRA, 25th February 2010, Table 5 page 10
[25] Information extracted directly from Domiciliary Care Services for Adults in Northern Ireland (2009), DHSSPS, NISRA, 25th February 2010, Table 6 page 11
[26] Information extracted directly from Domiciliary Care Services for Adults in Northern Ireland (2009), DHSSPS, NISRA, 25th February 2010, Table 7 page 12
[27] Domiciliary Care Services for Adults in Northern Ireland (2009), DHSSPS, NISRA, 25th February 2010, page 13
[28] Information extracted directly from Older People and Domiciliary Care, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, NIAO, NIA 45/07-08, 31st October 2007, Figure 3, page 14
[29] Older People and Domiciliary Care, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, NIAO, NIA 45/07-08, 31st October 2007, pages 16 and 17
[30] Older People and Domiciliary Care, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, NIAO, NIA 45/07-08, 31st October 2007, page 17
[31] Report into Older People and Domiciliary Care, Public Accounts Committee, Northern Ireland Assembly, February 2008, paragraph 18
[32] Personal Communication, RQIA, Communications Manager, 5th March 2010
[33] The Domiciliary Care Agencies Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007, Explanatory Notes http://www.opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2007/nisr_20070235_en_5#Legislation-ExNote
[34] Domiciliary Care Agencies Minimum Standards, DHSSPS, July 2008
[35] Key points directly extracted from Survey of Domiciliary Care Providers in Northern Ireland 2008, DHSSPS, NISRA, 2nd Sept. 2009, pages 2-3
[36] Survey of Domiciliary Care Providers in Northern Ireland 2008, DHSSPS, NISRA, 2nd Sept. 2009, Conclusions, page 30-31
[37] Older People and Domiciliary Care, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, NIAO, NIA 45/07-08, 31st October 2007, paragraphs 4.6 – 4.18
[38] Older People and Domiciliary Care, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, NIAO, NIA 45/07-08, 31st October 2007, paragraph 4.25
[39] Citizens Advice Bureau, On-line Advice Finder, Community care: Assessments NI, 08.34.04.07
[40] Single Assessment Tool (NISAT) DHSSPS Press Release, 11th February 2009
[41] NISAT News, volume 1(1), September 2009, www.dhssps.gov.uk/nisat_news_-_oct.09.pdf
[42] www.dhssps.gov.uk/ec-northern-ireland-single-assessment-tool-and-guidance
[43] NISAT News, volume 1(1), September 2009, www.dhssps.gov.uk/nisat_news_-_oct.09.pdf
[44] Personal Communication with Communications Manager of the RQIA, 17th February 2010
[45] Information extracted directly from Older People and Domiciliary Care, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, NIAO, NIA 45/07-08, 31st October 2007, Figure 8, page 19
[46] Older People and Domiciliary Care, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, NIAO, NIA 45/07-08, 31st October 2007, paragraph 2.24, page 19
[47] Older People and Domiciliary Care, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, NIAO, NIA 45/07-08, 31st October 2007, paragraph 3.6, page 21
[48] Older People and Domiciliary Care, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, NIAO, NIA 45/07-08, 31st October 2007, paragraph 3.7-3.8
[49] Glasby, J et. al. (2006), All dressed up but nowhere to go? Delayed hospital discharges and older people, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 11(1), 52-58
[50] Information extracted directly from Older People and Domiciliary Care, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, NIAO, NIA 45/07-08, 31st October 2007, Figure 9, page 20
[51] Community Care: Assessments NI, Citizens Advice Bureau, Advicefinder 08.34.04.07, paragraph 40
[52] http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/home_help_circular_-_2009_-_pdf.pdf
[53] Community Care: Assessments NI, Citizens Advice Bureau, Advicefinder 08.34.04.07, paragraph 40a-40g
[54] Poole, T. Funding Adult Social Care in England, The King's Fund, March 2009, The Path to Reform
[55]An Overview of the UK Domiciliary Care Sector, UK Home Care Association Summary Paper, December 2009, Section 4
[56] Poole, T. Funding Adult Social Care in England, The King's Fund, March 2009, How is social care funded?
[57] NHS Choices, What is the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare?, www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2392.aspx?CategoryID=68&SubCategoryID=155
[58] Directgov, Disabled People, Support after leaving hospital, http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/HealthAndSupport/Hospitals/DG_4000456
[59] Putting People First: A shared vision and commitment to the transformation of Adult Social Care, Dec. 2007, HM Government, NHS, Section 2 Values
[60] Putting People First: A shared vision and commitment to the transformation of Adult Social Care, Dec. 2007, HM Government, NHS, Section 3 A Personalised Adult Social Care System
[61] Direct Payments and Individual Budgets , Help the Aged Policy Statement, 2008
[62] Direct Payments and Individual Budgets , Help the Aged Policy Statement, 2008
[63] Social Care Institute for Excellence progress report on personal budgets, July 9th 2009, http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/07/02/112000/progress-on-personal-budgets-july-2009-personalisation.htm
[64] Social Care Institute for Excellence progress report on personal budgets, July 9th 2009, http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/07/02/112000/progress-on-personal-budgets-july-2009-personalisation.htm
[65] Community Care Statistics 2008 Home Care Services for Adults, England, NHS, The Information Centre for health and social care, March 2009, Tables 5 and 7
[66] Community Care Statistics 2008 Home Care Services for Adults, England, NHS, The Information Centre for health and social care, March 2009, Table 5
[67] Community Care Statistics 2008 Home Care Services for Adults, England, NHS, The Information Centre for health and social care, March 2009, Table 7
[68] Community Care Statistics 2008 Home Care Services for Adults, England, NHS, The Information Centre for health and social care, March 2009, page 12
[69] Poole, T. Funding Adult Social Care in England, The King's Fund, March 2009, The Challenges for Reform
[70] Shaping the Future of Care Together, HM Government, July 2009, Executive Summary
[71] Personal Care at Home Bill 2009-10, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/personalcareathome.html
[72] Gheera, M. and Booth, L. (2009), Personal Care at Home Bill, House of Commons Library Research Paper 09/90, 9th December 2009
[73] Payne, J. (2007), Community Care in Scotland, SPICe briefing 07/29
[74] Modernising community care: an action plan, The Scottish Office 1998, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1
[75] Modernising community care: an action plan, The Scottish Office 1998, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.12
[76] Payne, J. (2007), Community Care in Scotland, SPICe briefing 07/29
[77]An Overview of the UK Domiciliary Care Sector, UK Home Care Association Summary Paper, December 2009, Section 6
[78] Payne, J. (2007), Community Care in Scotland, SPICe briefing 07/29
[79] Care Information Scotland, website, www.careforscotland.co.uk Personal and Nursing Care
[80] Care Information Scotland, website, www.careforscotland.co.uk Charging Policies
[81] Care Information Scotland, website, www.careforscotland.co.uk Financial Assessment
[82]An Overview of the UK Domiciliary Care Sector, UK Home Care Association Summary Paper, December 2009, Section 6
[83]An Overview of the UK Domiciliary Care Sector, UK Home Care Association Summary Paper, December 2009, Section 6
[84] Extracted from Table 2, Home Care Services, Scotland, 2009, November 2009, The Scottish Government
[85] Extracted from Table 4, Home Care Services, Scotland, 2009, November 2009, The Scottish Government
[86] Home Care Packages, Department of Health and Children, Republic of Ireland, www.dohc.ie/public/information/health_services_for_older_people/home_care_packages_for_carers.html, What is the Home Care Support Scheme?
[87] Home Care Packages, Department of Health and Children, Republic of Ireland, www.dohc.ie/public/information/health_services_for_older_people/home_care_packages_for_carers.html, Who is the Home Care Support Scheme aimed at?
[88] Home Care Packages, Department of Health and Children, Republic of Ireland, www.dohc.ie/public/information/health_services_for_older_people/home_care_packages_for_carers.html, How does a Home Care Support Package Work?
[89] Evaluation of Home Care Packages, PA Consulting Group, Department of Health and Children, November 2009, Executive Summary, 5-12
[90] Figure extracted from Evaluation of Home Care Packages, PA Consulting Group, Department of Health and Children, November 2009, Executive Summary, page 8
[91] Glendinning, C. and Bell, D (2008), Rethinking social care and support: What can England learn from other countries?, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Viewpoint, November 2008
[92] Glendinning, C. and Bell, D (2008), Rethinking social care and support: What can England learn from other countries?, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Viewpoint, November 2008
[93] These charities have now merged to become Age NI
[94] One Voice, Shaping our Ageing Society in Northern Ireland (2009), Section – Outcomes for Older People
[95] One Voice, Shaping our Ageing Society in Northern Ireland (2009), Section – Outcomes for Older People
[96] One Voice, Shaping our Ageing Society in Northern Ireland (2009), Section – Outcomes for Older People
[97]Older People and Domiciliary Care, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, NIAO, NIA 45/07-08, 31st October 2007, page 20
Assembly Section
Craigantlet Buildings
Stormont
BT4 3SX
Tel No: 02890 529147
Fax No: 02890 523600
Email: Norman.Irwin@dfpni.gov.uk
Mr Shane McAteer
Clerk
Committee for Finance and Personnel
Room 419
Parliament Buildings
Stormont 29 November 2010
Dear Shane
I recently advised you that the Department was in the process of uplifting the carers premium (for pensioner carers) under the existing low income rate relief scheme. This type of change is exactly what the low income relief scheme was designed to do (evolve easily and be responsive to changing demands and needs) and the change will be one of a series of enhancements introduced since the scheme was first introduced in 2007.
The detail of the change has recently being finalised with officials in the Department for Social Development, Land & Property Services (LPS) and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE). I wish to provide Members with an update on how support for carers, through the rating system, is to be taken forward.
Members were previously advised that the uplift should apply to pensioner carers. However, following further discussion with operational and legislative colleagues it would appear that the numbers affected by this would be lower than expected, at a couple of hundred maximum. The causes are complex but one of the main reasons is that the carer premium can apply to either the carer or his/her partner and it is not uncommon for the carer to be under pension age.
Updated figures from LPS and NIHE suggest that there are around 800 carer premium cases where the recipients (which, as noted above, need not necessarily be the carer) are of pension age and in receipt of partial housing benefit or rate relief. A figure which disregards the 75% majority of carer premium cases that already have their rates bill fully paid. It would appear that the number of ratepaying households currently in receipt of the carer premium, irrespective of age, and in receipt of partial housing benefit or rate relief is around 1900.
Confining the scheme to such low numbers of pensioner carers does beg the question of whether it is worth doing in the first place. Having considered the options available, the need for simplicity (in terms of operational and legislative changes as well as explaining the change to ratepayers) and the desire not to distort the underpinning nature of the housing benefit system the Minister now considers that it would be better to provide an uplift to all those in receipt of carer premium, irrespective of age.
Setting the level of the uplift at 20% means that the uplift can be extended to all in receipt of the carer premium while maintaining the cost, in terms of revenue foregone, at around the upper range of the previous estimates. While it is not possible to precisely determine how many new recipients may be brought within the remit of the carer premium as a result of the uplift we consider that a maximum increase in numbers of around 25% (500 cases) appears reasonable. In total up to 2500 could therefore benefit from the uplift, reducing rates bills by, on average, up to £45 per year. A modest amount in itself but for the vast majority of people who are eligible this will represent additional help to the relief they already receive through the existing low income rate relief scheme. The revenue foregone associated with this would be just slightly over £100,000 per annum, with one off operational costs of around £20,000.
In terms of timing NIHE have advised that operationally two to three months is needed for sufficient testing of the change, that would take us to around mid February. Given the proximity to the turn of the rating year (and the additional complexities associated with this) the Minister considers that it would be better to introduce the uplift from the start of the 2011/12 rating year.
Officials would of course be happy to provide the Committee with further information, if necessary.
Yours sincerely
NORMAN IRWIN
4 March 2011 NIAR 162/165-11
The following information was requested to assist the Committee for Social Development with the Committee Stage of the Carer's Allowance Bill:
|
The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee report 'Valuing and Supporting Carers' was published in July 2008[1] in response to the then Labour Government's 10 year vision for carers entitled 'Carer's at the Heart of 21st Century Families and Communities'. The 10 year vision set out a wide range of commitments for carers including the provision of advice and information; breaks for carers; improved support from the NHS; and support to help carers' better combine work and care. The Government also stated in the vision that carers would "be supported so that they are not forced into financial hardship by their caring role".
The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee at that time expressed disappointment that benefits for carers were not directly addressed in the Carers Strategy. The Committee believed that the current system of benefits for carers was outdated and recommended the introduction of two distinctive 'tiers' of support for carers which offered (i) income-replacement support for carers unable to work, or working only part-time; and (ii) compensation for the additional costs of caring for all carers in intensive caring roles. The Committee reiterated its call for a two tier system in its July 2009 report 'Tackling Pensioner Poverty'[2].
Included in the Committee's 'Valuing Carers' Inquiry Terms of Reference was a focus on Income and Carer's Allowance:
"Income and Carer's Allowance. What is the impact of caring on carers' earning potential? Do carers receive sufficient support with additional costs as a result of caring? Are benefits and allowances adequate in minimising the financial impact of caring? Do benefits and allowances impact on barriers and incentives to work or carer's ability to engage in education and training, and if so how? Do benefits and allowances impact on carers' pension entitlements, and if so how?"
The Committee felt that in general, The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) should take a more strategic approach to supporting carers which aimed to:
The Work and Pensions Committee maintained that Carer's Allowance was an outdated benefit and recommended that carer's benefits should be radically overhauled at the earliest opportunity to recognise the contribution carers make and to be more flexible to reflect carer's different circumstances. The Committee maintained that carers who are not able to work due to their caring responsibilities should be entitled to an income replacement benefit comparable to other income replacement benefits and that the additional payment should recognise the additional costs of caring for one or more people.
The Committee recommended that DWP gave "urgent and detailed consideration" to replacing Carer's Allowance with a two-tiered benefit for carers. The Committee suggested that this should operate as follows:
The Committee noted that the Australian Commonwealth Government operates a two-tier system of carer benefits – Carer Payment and Carer Allowance.
Carer Payment: an income-replacement benefit paid to carers, it is means tested on income and assets (apart from the family home) and is paid at the same rate as other social security pensions. The maximum single rate in 2010/11 was $658.40 per fortnight (equivalent to £412.28); the maximum couples rate was $496.30 per fortnight (equivalent to £310.81)[4]. The maximum rate is payable for those with assets up to $160,000 and tapered down to no entitlement for assets over $800,000. A recipient of Carer Payment can undertake work or study for a maximum of 25 hours per week without losing their entitlement. In addition, recipients of Carer Payment are passported to entitlement to utilities allowance of $500 per year and a telephone allowance of $132 per year. To be eligible for Carer Payment a claimant must be providing care in the home of the person(s) being cared for and also be providing one of the following levels of care:
Carer Payment cannot be received in addition to other income support payments such as 'Age Pension' or 'Parenting Payment'. However, carers of pensionable age may choose to receive either Carer Payment or Age Pension. There are said to be a number of benefits of opting to remain or switch to Carer Payment, e.g. they are paid at the same rate, Carer Payment includes entitlement to bereavement payment (if the person cared for was a non-partner); respite breaks of up to 63 days per calendar year without affecting payment; eligibility for Carer Supplement (see below)[5].
Carer Allowance: is an income supplement available to people providing daily care and attention at home to a person who has a disability or severe medical condition. Carers Allowance is not taxable or income and assets tested. It is paid at a rate of $110.00 per fortnight (2010/11 rate – equivalent to £68.88). Virtually all recipients of Carer Payment are entitled to Carer Allowance. To be eligible for Carer Allowance, a person must be providing care and daily attention to a person with a disability or severe medical condition ( or up to two adults under one persons care) who is either:
The person being cared for must be likely to suffer from the disability permanently or for an extended period of at least 12 months (unless their condition is terminal). Carer Allowance can be paid in addition to other income support payments such as state pension.
In addition to Carer Allowance, up to $600 Carer Supplement is give to recipients for each person being cared for. Carer Supplement is an annual, non-indexed, tax free, automatic lump sum payment paid every July to assist in meeting the financial challenges of caring.
In response to the Committees recommendation for a two-tier payment system for carers, the then Labour Government stated[6]:
"Carer's Allowance provides a degree of replacement for lost or forgone income to those who have given up the opportunity of full-time work. However Carer's Allowance is not a wage for caring, nor is it intended to provide compensation for the extra costs faced by disabled people. There is a range of other benefits to help with these costs, such as Disability Living Allowance.
Disability Living Allowance is intended to provide a broad-brush contribution towards the extra costs faced by disabled people, in addition to the many other sources of financial and practical assistance available. It remains a valuable benefit, being worth up to £5,915 a year, and is increased annually in line with the Retail Prices Index.
Whilst the Government does not accept the general level of support provided to help with caring and the costs of a disability is inadequate, the Government does accept that the support available to carers does not differentiate sufficiently between the different needs and circumstances of carers. Building a system of support that is able to target resources more effectively to those with the greatest need will be one of the main aims as the Department works towards a better system of support for carers."
A number of organisations also recommended to the Committee that the Carer's Allowance should be raised at least to the same rate as Jobseekers' Allowance (JSA), the level of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) (support group) and State Pension level. DWP provided the Committee with the following estimated costs of raising Carer's Allowance to these levels (please note that these figures were provided in 2008):
| To equal JSA (at £60.50 pw) | To equal State Pension (at £90.70 pw) | To equal ESA (at £102.10 pw) | |
| Year 1 | £149m | £573m | £730m |
| Year 2 | £174m | £652m | £830m |
| Year 3 | £227m | £738m | £935m |
| Year 4 | £240m | £831m | £1050m |
| Year 5 | £254m | £931m | £1175m |
(Source: DWP)
Outlined in this section are some other key recommendations made by the former Work and Pensions Committee. The adoption of the first three recommendations in Northern Ireland may have parity implications. The last three recommendations, however, (i.e. in respect of older people's access to benefit advice and information; carer's centres and concession cards) are more akin to intervention by the devolved administrations and variations on these recommendations could be considered as a means of assisting all carers, including older people who provide care.
The Committee made three recommendations relating to Carer's Allowance eligibility and qualifying criteria:
The Committee believed that carers receive insufficient recognition and compensation for the additional costs of disability and that carers consistently faced costs that are not covered by Disability Living Allowance or Attendance Allowance. It called on the Government to commission an independent review of the impact of caring on carer's incomes and of the long-term costs of caring for an older people or someone with a disability. The Committee also stressed that the additional costs incurred by carers need to be recognised in any review of benefits for carers.
The Committee felt that health and social care professionals, such as GPs and primary care facilities, are an appropriate initial source of information regarding access to welfare benefits and other support. The Committee recommended the Government should develop a national strategy for giving carers advice on benefits in health care settings. The Royal College of Nursing and Rethink (a mental health membership charity) also supported the suggestion that GPs and nurses maintain a register of carers so that they could be easily identified and referred to appropriate assistance with benefits. Improving older people's access benefits and encouraging uptake is a particularly important given the recent report by the Northern Ireland Audit Office which highlighted the significant level of unclaimed Pension Credit and Housing Benefit amongst older people in Northern Ireland[7].
As part of the inquiry the Committee visited a number Commonwealth Carelink Centres (CCCs) in Australia. CCCs are information centres for older people, people with disabilities and carers. There are 65 CCCs throughout Australia with 'walk in' shop fronts (operated by public and voluntary organisations) and are located within or near shopping centres. The Committee noted that there is no such network of Carer's Centres in the UK and recommended that the Government took a more strategic approach and established a network of such centres in the UK supported by adequate core funding.
The Committee noted that in Australia, there was extensive provision made at State and local authority level to provide concessionary rates for carers, e.g. reduced costs medicines; reduction in property, water rates and utility bills; telephone allowance; reduced fares on public transport; reductions in motor vehicle registration. The Committee recommended that the Government follows Australia's good example and proactively negotiates concession cards for carers for travel, parking, leisure and other activities. It also recommended that business and transport operators help carers cope with the financial burden of their responsibilities.
It is worth noting that a number of concessions are available to eligible carer's in the Republic of Ireland. A 'Household Benefits Package' is available which includes an Electricity/Gas Allowance; Bottled Gas Refill Allowance; Telephone Allowance; Free Television Licence[8]: This package is available to certain groups, e.g. those aged 70 over, those in receipt of Carer's Allowance. However, it is important to note that the package is means-tested.
There are three main benefits available to carers residing in the Republic of Ireland – Carer's Allowance; Carer's Benefit and Respite Care Grant.
Carer's Allowance is a means-tested benefit payable to those looking after someone who is in need of support due to age, physical or learning disability, and/or mental illness. Carer's Allowance is only payable to those on low incomes who look after those in need of full-time care. In order to be entitled to Carer's Allowance a person must be:
The person cared for must be:
| Carer | Maximum Weekly Rate |
| Aged under 66, caring for one person | €204 |
| Aged under 66, caring for two persons | €306 |
| Aged 66 or over and caring for one person | €239 |
| Aged 66 or over and caring for two persons | €358.50 |
| Increase for qualified child | €29.80 (full-rate) €14.90 (half-rate) |
The Carer's Allowance scheme provides a degree of flexibility, e.g. two carers who are providing care on a part-time basis in an established pattern can share a single Carer's Allowance. A person who is providing care on a part-time basis to someone who attends a residential institution (e.g. every other week) can also be accommodated by the Carer's Allowance Scheme.
The means test for Carer's Allowance involves assessing income (excluding the family home). Since April 2008, the amount of weekly income that is not taken into account is €332.50). In the case of the income of a married or co-habiting couple (except for social welfare payments to which special rules apply) the first €665 of combined weekly income is disregarded.
Since September 2007, a person receiving social welfare payments and providing full-time care can keep their main social welfare payment and receive half-rate Carer's Allowance in addition to this. If a person is receiving Carer's Allowance and subsequently becomes entitled to another payment, then the person can claim the other payment and get half-rate Carer's Allowance (if the other payment is a qualifying payment).
Those who qualify for Carer's Allowance also qualify for a range of other entitlements such as free household benefits (e.g. free electricity/Natural Gas/Bottled Gas Refill Allowance, Free Television Allowance, Free Telephone Rental Allowance, Free Travel Pass)[11]. The Respite Care Grant (see end of this section for further details) is also automatically paid to those in receipt of Carer's Allowance in June of each year.
Carer's Benefit is a payment made to insured persons in Ireland who leave the workforce to care for a person or persons in need of full-time care. Carer's Benefit is payable for a total period of 104 weeks for each person being cared for which may be claimed as a single continuous period or in any number of separate periods up to a total of 104 weeks. If caring for more than one person, a payment for each care recipient may be available.
To be eligible for Carer's Benefit, a person must:
The current weekly rates of Carer's Benefit are as follows:
| Carer Aged Under 66 | Maximum weekly rate |
| Caring for one person | €205 |
| Caring for 2 persons | €307.50 |
| Increase for each qualified child | €29.80 (full rate), €14.90 (half rate) |
If the person cared for dies, Carer's Benefit will continue for six weeks following the death. An addition to Carer's Benefit an annual Respite Care Grant is available.
A carer's right to leave from employment compliments the Carer's Benefit scheme. Carer's leave allows employees to leave their employment temporarily for a period of up to 104 weeks to provide full-time care. The leave period is unpaid but those who avail of carer's leave will have their jobs kept open for them during the duration of the leave period.
The Respite Care Grant is an annual payment made to carers who may use the grant in whatever way they wish, e.g. for respite care. The grant of €1,700 is usually paid in June each year and is not taxable. The Department for Social Protection pays the grant automatically to carers receiving benefits such as Carer's Allowance and Carer's Benefit. Only one Respite Care Grant can be paid for each person receiving care. To receive Respite Care Grant a carer must be:
Tapering is defined at the rate in which benefits are reduced to take account of earnings. Those receiving Carer's Allowance can only earn up to the earnings limit (currently £100 per week), above this limit all of the Carer's Allowance is lost. The Coalition Government is considering whether changes to Carer's Allowance will be necessary to take account of the introduction of Universal Credit. However, the 'Universal Credit' paper did recognise that the current level and tapering associated with Carer's Allowance has been ineffective in both poverty prevention and in meeting the needs of carers:
"For too long the current system of carer benefits has failed to meet the different needs of carers and has trapped some people on benefits….
Carer's Allowance is paid at a lower rate than other income-replacement benefits (currently £53.90). All governments, since 1976, when Invalid Carer's Allowance was introduced have faced the dilemma that increasing the level of benefit is neither affordable nor cost effective. Hence, Carer's Allowance has stayed at this level, playing an ineffective role, neither effective in poverty prevention nor in meeting the wider needs of carers. We can only deliver proper support for carers with the greatest financial burden by addressing the current confusing interactions between Carer's Allowance and other benefits."[14]
In 2007 the UK Government launched a review of its 1999 Strategy for Carers. The review was led by the Department of Health and four task forces were set up to consider four different elements – health and social care; equalities; employment; and income. Included in the terms of reference for the Income Taskforce review group was the remit to make recommendations for income-related revisions to the National Carers' Strategy.
The Taskforce published its report in July 2008 and made a number of general critical comments in relation to Carer's Allowance. Specifically, the Taskforce maintained that the allowance[15]:
The Taskforce was very critical of the earnings threshold and in particular the impact on lone income earners and work incentives:
"Above £95 per week [the rate in 2008 when the report was compiled] the entire benefit is withdrawn. There is no distinction between whether the carer is the lone income earner in the household or whether they have a partner on a high income. This differs from income-related benefits and tax credits, which consider household rather than individual income as the testing criteria. Thus the situation can arise that an out of work carer (or one with earnings less than the earnings limit) with a high earning partner can receive Carer's Allowance, whereas even a low-income working single carer cannot.
The fact that CA is immediately withdrawn above an income of £95 per week has implications for work incentives."
The Taskforce recommended introducing a tapering effect into the earnings rule to remove the disincentive effects of the 'cliff edge' cut off point in carers earnings at a rate of a £1 reduction in benefit for each £1extra of earnings above the threshold. In terms of impact the Taskforce estimated that [noting that the report was published in 2008],
"Using a £ for £ taper as an illustrative example, an estimated 25,000 carers could gain initially from an earnings taper. Changing the earnings rule is more likely to benefit carers who are able to do more hours of work, or who have higher incomes, and those who are not also receiving Income Support, income-based ESA or Pension Credit. Introducing an earnings taper could promote equality for disabled people by enabling disabled carers to participate more widely in the labour market, and promote equality for women through enabling carers to increase their hours or pay, thus contributing towards reducing the gender pay gap.
When introduced (year zero) the estimated cost of introducing a £ for £ taper, for example, in Carer's Allowance would be £40 million rising to £60 million by year 5. Other tapers with slower reduction rates would be more expensive."
The Taskforce also made a number of other recommendations including raising the level of Carer's Allowance by £10; raising the care premium in income-related benefits; removing the full-time education rule; and introducing an annual grant in addition to the weekly benefit. However, the Taskforce also recognised that these measures would have significant cost implications - £1.4bn in the first year rising to £2.6bn by year 5 (again it should be noted that the report was published in 2008) and that it may not be fiscally possible to introduce them simultaneously.
The Commission on Funding of Care and Support (aka the Dilnot Commission) was launched (in July 2010) by the Coalition Government as an independent body to make recommendations as to how to achieve an affordable and sustainable funding system for care and support, for all adults in England, both in the home and other settings. The Commission was tasked with exploring funding in the context of broader support for older people and other users of care services. The Commission was required to report on its findings to Government by the end of July 2011[16].
Specifically, the Commission was asked to examine and provide deliverable recommendations on:
In defining its work, it has taken a wide definition of care and support:
"We are looking at all the different ways in which people, of all ages, are supported by the state. This means that we are considering the role played by the adult social care system; the social security system; the National Health Service (NHS); housing support; and public health and prevention services. We are not forgetting the valuable contribution made by carers, families, friends and communities.
We are considering the full range of different funding models, including past proposals and new ideas. No options have been ruled out, and we currently have an open mind about the best possible options for reform.
We are examining the different ways care and support can be paid for in the future. This includes looking at ways of encouraging the private market to offer financial products to help people protect their assets; and looking at the different ways in which the state could contribute."
The Commission maintains that there are two overarching principles that need to underpin any future system of care and support and that these will be reflected in its recommendations:
The Commission will also explore the practical details of any proposal, including issues such as:
The Dilnot Commission launched a call for evidence[17] in December 2010, the call for evidence closed at the end of January 2011 and the Commission are reviewing the responses. The Commission is to provide recommendations and advice on how to implement the best option to Government by July 2011. There has been some speculation in the media that private insurance schemes could play a part in funding an individual's future care needs particularly for high and middle-income earners[18].
After releasing their 'Shaping care together'[19] Green Paper on care in England in July 2009, the then Labour Government conducted a consultation exercise known as the 'Big Care Debate' on care and support, with over 68,000 members of the public including individual citizens, carers and representative organisations. This exercise ran until November 2009 and the report that followed highlighted that the main themes people raised during consultation were:
Following on from this the Government issued proposals to establish a new National Care Service which would:
The proposals were set out in a White Paper released by former Health Secretary Andy Burnham on 01 April 2010. This paper acknowledged that such a service could not be established overnight and proposed that it be done in 3 stages:
Build on the best of the existing system through reforms and deliver the Personal Care at Home Bill
To set in motion the NCS through a National Care Service Bill.
From 2014 ensure the coverage of free care will be extended so people receive free care if they need to stay in residential care for 2 years or more.
The introduction of a comprehensive National Care Service funded by contributions and free for all adults in England when they need it.
Once established the six founding principles of the National Care Service would be:
Since this paper was released however it appears the creation of this service has stalled. This may be due to a change of government at Westminster this shortly after the White Paper was published. In July 2010 the current Health Secretary Andrew Lansley announced a review into palliative care funding which would report back in 2011 but there is no new information on the NCS[21].
Respite is a broad term which allows for much needed breaks for the carer. Research advocates the importance of respite and short care services for carers.[22] This can be for a few hours to a number of weeks. Respite also enables children or adults with disabilities to have a change of scene and a change of carer. As many carers provide high levels of constant and intensive care without payment or holidays, this can place an enormous burden on them and their families. Inadequate respite care can also have a detrimental impact on a carer's physical and mental health.
Carers who spend a substantial amount of time caring are legally entitled to an assessment of their needs. In the UK, needs assessments for carers are completed under the following legislation, and this is usually considered with the assessment of needs provision for the person being cared for:
The Carers (Recognition & Services) Act 1995 and the Carers & Disabled Children Act 2000 provide for an assessment and give authorities powers to supply services to carers after their needs are identified.[23]
The carer assessment legislation is the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, as in England. A new measure has also been introduced that requires the NHS and local authorities to produce a carers' information strategy.
A carer's assessment is available under the Community Care and Health Act (Scotland) 2002.[24]
The Carers and Direct Payments (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 places a duty to provide an assessment and gives authorities the power to offer services to carers to support them. The Act also allows Trusts to make Direct Payments.[25] Child carers under 16 are assessed under the provisions of the Children (NI) Order, 1995.
There is a wide variety of respite care services available across the UK which are provided by statutory, private, voluntary organisations and individuals. Respite can be classified as follows:
It is difficult to know the number of organisations, services and beds available for respite care in the UK. This is because the care provided through a statutory assessment care plan, which is funded by Trusts or local authorities, is delivered by a range of agencies or stakeholders. The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust for example, offers services such as short stay residential and day centre care, direct payments and specific services for carers (like complimentary therapies).[26] Direct Payments (as discussed below) are statutory sources of funding which enable carers or those being cared for, to buy specific respite services that have been identified in their care plan.
Direct Payments are available in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales.[27],[28],[29] This is a monetary payment from the Trust that enables services to be arranged by the carer or person being cared for, instead of Trusts directly providing services. Therefore Direct Payments enable more choice and control by allowing individuals to tailor what type of support they need and when. Payments can be used to employ independent individuals to provide assistance, to buy services from agencies, or sometimes to combine statutory services with payments. The recipients might use the money towards driving lessons, a holiday or domestic help, i.e. anything which is an agreed identified need that will help to support them in their caring role. Payments do not affect other types of income-related social security benefits and the recipient may be asked to make a contribution towards the cost of the service or support offered.[30]
Often, not enough respite provision is available for all of those who require it, and many carers or people being cared for have to be placed on a waiting list before a respite place or service becomes available. In addition, sometimes the care offered is neither accessible nor appropriate to the individuals' needs.[31] Respite also varies between Trusts, and a lack of funding from social services has been reported.[32]
A strategy for carers, "Caring for Carers"[33] was published in January 2006. The strategy covers a range of issues relevant to the lives and wellbeing of carers including health and personal social services, employment, training, education, information and support services. Section 6 of the Strategy focuses on young carers including identifying and assessing young carers, the provision of information and emotional support for young carers.
The DHSSPSNI also produces guidance for Health and Social Care staff on carers[34] plus an A-Z guide for carers in Northern Ireland[35].
The Nidirect guide to government services provides a page for young carers[36] covering the support that is available, information on assessment and support at school. There are links to other support agencies such as Barnardos, Action for Children and Crossroads Care.
In 2007 funding of £0.5m was announced by Health Minister Paul Goggins for the establishment of a regional young carers service for Northern Ireland[37]. In May 2010 the new service was officially launched by Health Minister Michael McGimpsey at Stormont[38]. The Service is funded by the DHSSPSNI and commissioned by the Health and Social Care Board and is jointly delivered by Action for Children NI, in partnership with Newry and Mourne Carers Association and Barnardos NI.
The new service allows young carers access to regional support centres irrespective of Trust boundaries. It aims to improve the lives of young carers in terms of their health, mental and emotional well being, educational attendance and achievement. As well as being a source of better and timelier information, the scheme allows young carers to take part in social and recreational opportunities with young people of their own age and also in organised social and leisure activities. This provides a break from caring and helps make childhood and adolescence a more normal experience. The £0.5m annual funding for the new service comes from the Children and Young People Funding Package, a funding scheme which was first announced in 2006 with the aim of reducing social, health and educational differentials and give children and young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds the best possible start in life.
[1] House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee (2008). Valuing and Supporting Carers. Fourth Report of Session 2007-08. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmworpen/485/485i.pdf
[2] House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee (2009) Tackling Pensioner Poverty. Fifth Report. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmworpen/411/41102.htm
[3] Unless otherwise stated information in this section has been extracted from Australia Government/Centrelink publication. Disability and Carer Payment Rates 1 January to 19 March 2011. www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/filestores/co031_1101/$file/co031_1101en.pdf
[4] Recent rates extracted from the Australian Government/Centrelink Paper. Disability and Carer Payment Rates 1 January to 19 March 2011.
[5] Centrelink. Carer Payment or Age Pension? www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nst/…/cd002_0907.rtf
[6] Work and Pensions Committee (2008) First Special Report – Valuing and Supporting Carers. Government's response. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmworpen/105/10504.htm
[7] Northern Ireland Audit Office (2011) Uptake of Benefits by Pensioners. www.niauditoffice.gov.uk/pubs/onepress.asp?arc=False&id=251&dm=0&dy=0
[8] Information extracted from the Department of Social Protection website [access 1 March 2011] www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/HouseholdBenefits/Pages/default.aspx
[9] Information extracted from the Department of Social Protection website [accessed 1 March 2011] www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/IllnessDisabilityAndCaring/Carers/CarersAllowance/Pages/ca.aspx
[10] A person is regarded as requiring full-time care and attention where he or she is so incapacitated as to require continuous supervision in order to avoid danger to themselves or continual supervision and frequent assistance throughout the day in connection with normal bodily functions; or a person is so incapacitated as to be likely to require full-time care and attention for a period of at least 12 months.
[11] For further information on Household Benefits see www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/HouseholdBenefits/Pages/hb.aspx
[12] Information extracted from the Department of Social Protection website [accessed 1 March 2011] www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/IllnessDisabilityAndCaring/Carers/CarersBenefit/Pages/carb.aspx
[13] Information extracted from the Department of Social Protection website [accessed 11 March 2011] www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/IllnessDisabilityAndCaring/Carers/RespiteCareGrant/Pages/respite.aspx
[14] Department for Work and Pensions (2010) Universal Credit: welfare that works, p19. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/universal-credit-full-document.pdf
[15] Income Task Force Report (2008) New Deal for Carers – Income Taskforce Report. www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_086583.pdf
[16] For further information on the Dilnot Commission see www.dilnotcommission.dh.gov.uk
[17] See www.dilnotcommission.dh.gov.uk/files/2010/12/1.1-Call-for-Evidence-FINAL-pdf.pdf
[18] The Telegraph. 'Buy private insurance to fund care in old age, Dilnot Commission suggests. 8 November 2010. www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8115919/Buy-private-insurance-to-fund-care-in-old-age-Dilnot-Commission-suggests.html
[19] www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm76/7673/7673.pdf
[20] The White Paper can be accessed at – www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_114923.pdf
[21] www.dh.gov.uk/en/MediaCentre/Pressreleases/DH_117330
[22] Social Care Institute for Excellence: Research Briefing Short breaks respite care for children with learning disabilities. Available online at: www.scie.org.uk/publications/briefings/briefing05/index.asp
[23] Carers UK Available online at: www.carersuk.org/Information/Helpwithcaring/Carersassessmentguide
[24] The Scottish Government: Community Care & Health (Scotland) Act 2002
Available online at www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Health/care/17655/guidance-profesionals/9803
[25] DHSSPS Carers Assessment and Information guidance www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/ec-carers-assessment-information-guidance.pdf page 12
[26] Belfast Health and Social Care Trust: available online at www.belfasttrust.hscni.net/services.htm
[27] HSSPS A guide to receiving Direct Payments (2005). Available online at www.cilbelfast.org/guide-to-receiving-DPs.pdf. Website accessed 2.3.2011
[28] Carers UK website www.carersuk.org/Information/Directpayments/Whataredirectpayments Website accessed 2.3.2011
[29] Scottish Executive (2003) A Guide to Receiving Direct Payments in Scotland. Available online at: www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk/publications/grdps/grdps.pdf Website accessed 2.3.2011
[30] NI Direct. Information available online at: www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/information-and-services/caring-for-someone/money-matters/direct-payments-for-carers.htm Website accessed 2.3.2011
[31] Niwa, L. Law Centre NI Respite Care: Facilities for women & young adults found lacking. Available online at: www.lawcentreni.org/publications/frontline-magazine/392.html Website accessed 2.3.2011
[32] Northern Ireland Assembly Debate (3 July 2007) Respite Care. Available online at: www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2007-07-03.1.22 Website accessed 2.3.2011
[33] www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/ec-dhssps-caring-for-carers.pdf
[34] www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/eccu3-2010.pdf
[35] www.nidirect.gov.uk/a-z_guide_for_carers-3.pdf
[36] www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/information-and-services/caring-for-someone/caring-and-support-services/young-carers.htm
[37] www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/information-and-services/caring-for-someone/caring-and-support-services/young-carers.htm
[38] www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-dhssps/news-dhssps-may-2010/news-dhssps-17052010-contribution-of-young.htm
Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of The Assembly and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.
Appendix 6
Mr Sam Bell Carers Northern Ireland
Ms Helen Ferguson Carers Northern Ireland
Mr Neil Couling Department for Work and Pensions
Ms Janis Creane Department for Social Development
Mr Gerry McCann Department for Social Development
Mr John O'Neil Department for Social Development
Mr David McNarry Member of the Legislative Assembly
