Carers

Debate between Huw Merriman and Barbara Keeley

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) not only for securing the debate, but for bringing to the Chamber her powerful experiences and sharing them with us. I also want to thank the Minister for all that he does to ensure that carers are given the support they need and deserve.

I want to sign up to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) that we should extend the pupil premium to all young carers. There are 160,000 young carers whose life chances are disadvantaged by the amazing duty that they perform. Extending the pupil premium to all those young people seems to me to be a very fair exchange for all that they do.

Looking at the other end of the age spectrum, 28% of my constituents in Bexhill and Battle are over 65. By comparison, the national average is 17%. Accordingly, I have a very high number of older carers in my constituency. That is what I want to focus my contribution on today. The 2011 census revealed that there are over 1.8 million carers aged 60 and over in England—almost 16% of the population in that age range. The number of carers aged 85 and over grew by 128% in the past decade, according to a report published last year by Carers UK and Age UK, and it is expected to double over the next 20 years, according to a Government report from 2014.

East Sussex has the highest proportion of over-85s in the UK. Again, that group will be highly pertinent to my constituency. Supporting this army of carers is absolutely essential if we are to ensure that our NHS continues to function. Given the Government’s welcome desire to support keeping people at home in their advancing years, rather than placing them in hospital, that support is even more important. I welcome the passing, by this Government when in coalition, of the Care Act 2014. The Act granted significant new rights to carers in England and placed duties on local authorities to ensure that support is delivered, advice is given and information is provided. It also placed a duty on NHS bodies to co-operate with local authorities in delivering Care Act functions, which, if the clinical commissioning groups in East Sussex can work as a whole, will lead to a “Better Together” integrated health system in East Sussex.

I am conscious that the delivery of those rights is contingent on local authorities having the necessary financial resources in place. I welcome the devolution of business rates to my county, but the yield in East Sussex is low and the demands from a population with above-average ageing is high. Our county will need more time to deliver and more investment in infrastructure to attract new businesses to the coast if this is going to provide for carers and other groups who need local authority finance and support.

I welcome the new 2% levy that local authorities can apply to council tax, provided that it is spent on adult social care. While I champion the rights of carers within the home, many carers are caring for loved ones who reside in care homes due to complex or advanced needs. It is absolutely essential that those carers have the comfort of knowing that their loved ones will be well cared for when they are not in the home to deliver it. I have championed the care home industry, which features heavily in my constituency. Funding them properly via the new 2% levy will, I hope, result in better Care Quality Commission ratings than those that have been awarded following recent investigations.

Across East Sussex, 60% of our care homes were found to be inadequate or needing improvement. It concerns me greatly that, because of these poor ratings, many of our carers may choose to soldier on at home when a care home would be the better choice for their loved ones. All the care homes that I have visited in my constituency have been fantastic. It is important that those that need to improve do so with the extra funding that the Government have procured.

In a rural constituency such as mine, social isolation can be a particular concern. This is exacerbated for older carers looking after loved ones. According to a report published in 2011, more than two thirds of older carers reported not getting breaks away from caring at all, with a further third getting a break only once every two or three months, or less. Let me therefore take this opportunity to thank all those constituents who do so much to give carers a break. While I am at it, let me name-check my mother and my two sisters, who regularly host teas at home attended by carers who do not get the chance to get out of the house and get looked after by someone else for a change. While it is right to look to the Government to be the ultimate support, very often it is the community and their acts of kindness, via visits, conversations, moral support and basic errands, who improve the welfare and wellbeing of our elderly carers. I salute all those who do it.

I am keen for the Government to look at the following suggestions that were made to me by the fantastic Care for the Carers team in East Sussex. First, we should help national partners reach more carers. Would it be possible to make it a duty for the NHS to identify carers, in the same way that the Care Act does for local authorities? Secondly, we should ensure that carers have good support. Would it be possible to ensure that local authorities do not charge carers for the support that they are entitled to? East Sussex is currently not charging carers, which I recognise and celebrate.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point about the NHS having a duty to identify carers. I have tried three times to introduce that in a private Member’s Bill, so I am really pleased to find support for it among Conservative Members.

[Huw Merriman]

I am pleased, as a novice in the House, that there is agreement across the House on that cause.

Thirdly, there should be help for carers in complex situations—those caring for people with dementia or mental health problems. It seems to me to be an obvious ask to promote good practice recommendations to commissioners and health professionals and to promote it in national policy making.

Finally, I thank and express huge admiration for all those who care for others in my constituency and beyond. I know that they seek little praise, but it is right that we should praise them this afternoon.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Huw Merriman and Barbara Keeley

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Barbara Keeley]

I think businesses might say, “About time,” given the history of the allowance. As the Minister said, the clause increases the maximum amount of the annual investment allowance from £25,000 to £200,000 for expenditure incurred on or after January 2016. In fact, that is a cut to the existing temporary level of £500,000.

The allowance ensures the immediate deduction of expenditure on most plant and machinery from taxable profits. The history of the allowance’s levels is entertaining. It was set at £50,000 between 2008 and 2010 and then it increased to £100,000. It was cut to £25,000 in 2012 but then increased to £250,000—supposedly temporarily—in 2013. In the 2014 Budget, as we just heard, it was raised again to £500,000 and, as was announced in the Budget, it is now being cut to £200,000 in 2016. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said:

“These changes and instability create costs and uncertainty and distort behaviour.”

In 2010, the Chancellor cut the main capital allowance rate and reduced the annual investment allowance to just a quarter of its previous level, from £100,000 down to £25,000. The Government then increased it, but on a temporary basis. Such unpredictability and complexity makes it difficult for businesses to plan the long-term investments that the allowances are intended to support—that is their whole purpose.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

That said, taking into account fluctuations over the years and the fact that it was a two-year stimulus, does the hon. Lady agree that the key part to the provision is that it is permanent, thus allowing businesses to plan in the way she advocates should be the way forward?

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman says that, but, looking at what people say about this, it seems that they do not have confidence that the allowance is permanent because of the way it has chopped and changed. That the Government acted in 2010 to reduce it to a quarter of its earlier value—it was £100,000—is part of the problem. One can see from what I just read out that it jumped around.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, both the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce have called for the annual investment allowance to be retained at £500,000. Crucially, the IFS also states that

“restricting the AIA to investment in plant and machinery only creates distortions through differential treatment of assets.”

The IFS has estimated that setting the annual investment allowance at £200,000 from January next year will cost £0.8 billion.

Will the Minister explain how the Chancellor reached the figure of £200,000? As I say, the allowance has jumped about: it was cut to just £25,000 and is now going to be £200,000. There were calls from some small and medium-sized businesses to set a level over £500,000. The IFS says that over the past few years there has been

“an absurd degree of inconsistency”

in the setting of the allowance. As highlighted earlier, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ “Paying for Tomorrow” campaign put forward a strong argument for a need for a long-term view on tax, with a simple, focused approach to tax reliefs. The history of the allowance is anything but that.

The inconsistency has a damaging effect on businesses’ confidence to plan for the future. The move to make the annual investment allowance a permanent rate is welcome, and we support the move to encourage investment and productivity, but we question whether the measure goes far enough. As I said, a number of small and medium-sized businesses have called for the allowance to be set above the current level of £500,000. As with business rates, they feel that the Chancellor has not listened to them. There are calls for him to look again at how he helps businesses to continue to spend and grow.

Other reliefs should also be considered. Consultations are out on business rates—although the Minister did not seem keen to tell me more about that one—enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts. We encourage the Government to focus more than they have on the needs of small businesses. I have many questions about how the annual investment allowance has been handled by the Government to date, but of course we welcome some degree of permanence, as guaranteed in the summer Budget—if it is to be permanent. However, the overall system of tax reliefs for businesses must be considered if we are to have a competitive and fair system for businesses to invest and grow. I hope that the Minister will adopt Labour’s new clause and launch a public consultation on reforms to the system of tax reliefs for businesses. I hope also that Members will support the new clause when we vote on it later.

National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill

Debate between Huw Merriman and Barbara Keeley

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I agree completely. The cut in corporation tax allowed this Government to justify the increase in the living wage, as it offsets that. Such a change would put all that at risk, although I very much hope that we will never see that day.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Finance Bill

Debate between Huw Merriman and Barbara Keeley

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

There seems to be the assumption that the entire increase will be passed on—perhaps in part it will—but I visited one of the country’s largest insurers in my constituency and it did not seem to have cause to pass on the increase. Perhaps the hon. Lady should reflect on that and see that passing on such costs may not be automatic. It may be that a reduction in corporation tax means that the costs can be absorbed.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think that I have already covered that. In a debate in 2010 it was accepted that these costs are almost always passed on. Almost every commentator has said that the costs will be passed on. Aviva and RSA have already announced that they will pass them on, so all the signs are that they will be passed on. Clearly, it would be good if any part of the insurance industry decided not to pass on the costs, but what we are seeing is an increase in premiums across the piece.

This tax increase on a merit good like insurance could undermine the message that individuals and society benefit if the correct level of insurance is taken out. An increase in the insurance premium tax of 58% punishes families and individuals for acting responsibly. When there have been previous increases in the tax, they have been something in the order of around 1%. There is a major concern that this steeper increase could be large enough to alter the coverage chosen by customers, which means that they would become underinsured. It may be that Conservative Members do not face problems of underinsurance in their constituencies. I must say that I have seen a lot of it in my constituency. People really suffer when they are underinsured. If levels of crime are high and there are other issues affecting them on the roads, underinsurance is a real issue.

The Government need to ensure that tax policies do not lead to a situation in which families struggling on low incomes decide to forgo insurance or let their previous policies lapse because prices have risen and they decide that they can no longer afford insurance. That could leave many families at risk of great loss in the event of burglary, or if they have a road accident.

Underinsurance could be a consequence of this rate rise. People could also opt for cheaper policies, which means that they do not get the right coverage, or they opt for higher excesses, which effectively means that their coverage is less. Buying insurance can be a complicated business and a good price may often take precedence over having the right level of coverage.

The HMRC policy paper for this rate rise estimated that there would be

“a small reduction in the demand for standard-rated insurance.”

Any fall in demand for insurance that leaves families open to greater risks should be avoided. Where does the Minister believe this “small reduction” is likely to occur and what is she doing to prevent reductions in the demand for insurance?

Finally, HMRC suggests that there could be changes in the behaviour of insurance companies. It states that there is likely to be

“a small increase in tax planning activity by insurance companies.”

What are the Government doing to minimise this further potential unwanted consequence?

Clause 43 is a typical measure from a Conservative Government who promise one thing and then deliver the opposite. In this case, the Chancellor promised before the election that he had no need to raise taxes, but then he raised this tax, which will have an impact on households throughout the UK and on their usage of insurance. The increase could have a number of negative consequences. Higher insurance premiums may lead to fewer families and individuals purchasing much-needed insurance to protect themselves against everyday problems, which happen much more often in some parts of the country than in others. I am talking about burglary and damage to property and possessions.

The Government must provide more information and analysis of the wider impacts of this tax increase, as well as strategies to prevent the negative consequences that are likely to result from this policy. Labour’s amendment to clause 43 asks the Government to consider the impact of any future increase of the tax.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called for a road map to indicate a long-term strategy for our tax system. The CBI has outlined its concerns about the UK tax system in a letter to the Financial Secretary, stressing the need for Ministers to recognise that

“changes to the tax system that appear innocuous can have wide-ranging effects.”

The CBI also stated that there was a need for “renewed discipline” in tax policy making and that the lack of consultation and notice period for tax changes can cause great uncertainty for businesses. None the less, the Government continue to increase and lower taxes for short-term policy goals. Labour believes that we need to consider how to reform our tax system so that people and businesses are taxed efficiently and fairly.

As I have outlined, there are particular concerns about this and any future potential rise in insurance premium tax because of the impact it might have on the price of insurance policies and the take-up of insurance by families and individuals. With that in mind, will the Minister comment on the potential for any further increases in the insurance premium tax during this Parliament, given the comment of her colleague in the Lords that the tax is an easy target?

Labour’s amendment will ensure that the impact of any future increase is properly considered by the Government. It will ensure that there are careful deliberations—much more careful than we have seen on this occasion—on the short and long-term consequences of any further increase in the insurance premium tax and its effect on families and business. I ask Members on both sides of the Committee to support our amendment tonight.