UK Parliament / Open data

Pensions Bill

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 April 2007. It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
I shall be extremely brief. We have heard some excellent speeches, and I do not want to duplicate what has been said by other Members, all of whom have spoken in favour of new clause 28. The principle is that carers credit is for the carer, not the person being cared for. Carers UK believes that a system of certification can be made to work, and that carers should not be punished for the inflexibility of the current system. As was explained by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), some people are not covered through no fault of their own. Someone caring for several people on the lower rate of disability living allowance, or a woman who looks after a schizophrenic husband who is not prepared to claim disability living allowance but needs constant care, cannot claim carers allowance, home responsibilities protection or carers national insurance credit . Many organisations recommend a system of accreditation, involving a standard form with a space for an approved professional to certify that a carer is working for 20 or more hours a week. In Committee, we had a fairly long discussion on whether a doctor would be an appropriate person. I think that appropriate people would be those who were involved with the disabled person and his or her carer at home, such as members of social services departments, local education authorities—in the case of those with special educational needs—and community mental health teams, or community nurses and other health professionals who are in constant contact with patient and carer. The Women’s Pensions Network, which includes groups such as Age Concern, Help the Aged and the Equal Opportunities Campaign, agrees that justice is needed for the people affected by the present system—40,000 according to Carers UK, although the EOC estimates that the number is closer to 50,000. In fact, it is not merely a question of the number of people affected; it is a question of justice for those who have fallen through the net of an inflexible framework. The Minister has kindly said that he is prepared to reflect seriously on the possibility of encapsulating those deserving individuals in the framework, and we await the outcome of his reflections with bated breath.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

459 c395 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber

Legislation

Pensions Bill 2006-07
Back to top