Welfare Spending
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman makes another interesting reflection on the state of the system left behind by 14 years of Tory government. We are going to be making progress, as I said.
Our plan will help deliver our ambition not just for jobs but for national renewal by building new homes, making the NHS fit for the future and powering the shift to green energy. Among people of working age, those with low or no qualifications are some 2.5 times more likely to be out of work than those who are better qualified. Just closing that gap would mean a million extra people in work.
But skills are not the only barrier; for many, it is ill health, and we are determined to get people back to work and back to good health. We will open up more opportunities for people who have been out of work because of ill health in the past with WorkWell employment advisers embedded directly in healthcare teams, from GP surgeries to mental health services.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will make a bit more headway first.
Connect to Work will go to the end of the decade to support 300,000 disabled people and people with health and other complex barriers to employment to get into and get on in work. Our Pathways to Work guarantee, backed by an additional £1 billion a year by the end of the decade, will bring all that together with personalised work, health and skills support for anybody on out-of-work benefits with a health condition or disability who wants that support.
We already have 1,000 new Pathways to Work advisers in place, working in jobcentres across the country to help disabled people. A few weeks ago I met a couple of them in Edinburgh, and they told me of the positive reactions from the people they ring up. The system gave up on those people years ago, but we have not given up on them.
Dr Evans
The Minister mentioned WorkWell, which is a fantastic scheme introduced in 2023 that dealt with 59,000 people through £64 million of Conservative Government investment. I am glad that the Government are taking that forward and looking to expand it. My concern as a GP is about trying to get more people on the premises. Where will the work coaches go when premises do not have the space? That delivery is really important. Will he explain what has happened from the pilots to where we are now and how this will be taken forward?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a welcome and much-needed step.
The early years are crucial to somebody’s life chances. Ensuring that children grow up happy, healthy and able to fulfil their potential is certainly, to borrow a phrase from the motion, “a moral mission”. However, it is also about reducing demand on social security, instead of sitting on our hands like the last Government and leaving the system to pick up higher costs further down the line.
The child poverty strategy will build on our cross-Government approach to lifting people out of poverty through rolling out free breakfast clubs, raising the national minimum wage and, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) points out, expanding free childcare and free school meals to all families on universal credit. It will be an ambitious strategy and in developing it we will consider all the levers available to give every child the best start in life.
To make work pay: that was what universal credit was intended to do. Yet it was left with perverse disincentives to work in the system, forcing people, as many did, to aspire to be classified as sick in order to qualify for a higher payment. We have addressed that by rebalancing the payments in universal credit, alongside other reforms. The system should not force people to aspire to be classified as sick; it should promote and encourage work and provide support to make work feasible.
As the shadow Secretary of State kindly mentioned, we are progressing the review, which I am responsible for.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will make a little more headway. The review will be co-produced with disabled people, to ensure that the system supports disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through work. We will also carry out more face-to-face assessments over the next year, boosting the number of health professionals working in assessment centres. Face-to-face assessments were stopped for understandable reasons during the pandemic, but they were never really brought back. The places where they were carried out were sold off and we are having to reinstate and rebuild that service.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is important that the House, first of all, reflects on where the Conservatives left our community when they left power. We should reflect on the fact that the number of people who are economically inactive has gone up from 2.1 million in 2019 to 2.8 million. The fact that the bill for incapacity benefits has gone up from £34 billion to £51 billion is quite shocking. It is interesting that the Conservatives feel able to share their pearls of wisdom with the Chamber after leaving the world in such a sorry state. The Conservatives have climbed into the gutter to produce the proposals before us this evening; Disraeli and Peel must be turning in their graves.
There are some real challenges. We need a true culture change, both in the benefit system and in the employment world, to help people get into work. That culture change should involve us taking a trauma-informed approach, in the DWP, in our civil service and in our society, so that we can help people who can work into work.
I would also like to reflect on the sorry state in which the Conservatives left our NHS after they starved it of cash and failed to invest in it for many years. It is a great pity that so many residents came to me in my first year as MP for Torbay to tell me that they were unable to have the operations they required, due to the Conservatives’ lack of investment over many years. They bled money out of the capital system to cover the costs of revenue. That is utterly shameful. Torbay hospital continues to crumble and, sadly, under the new Labour Government, we still see £250 million of in-year cuts to our NHS services. While the Conservatives undermine those with mental health challenges, Devon partnership NHS trust is set for £21 million in cuts.
Dr Evans
It was the Conservative Government who brought in the mental health investment standard to ensure parity for mental health. It is this Government who made the capital cut the hon. Gentleman mentions, and who are not meeting the standard. I am intrigued; why does he think that there is so much difficulty understanding that, and why are the Labour Government making cuts to mental health payments?
Steve Darling
I thank the hon. Member. I reflect on the savage cuts made to public health spending. I would particularly mention the number of people who sleep rough on our streets. I campaigned on the issue as a young Liberal, more than 30 years ago. Sadly, those rough sleepers are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the challenges in our society. The cuts faced by the Devon partnership trust are a real challenge.
I want to move on to Access to Work. Ministers have said on the record that it is one of the Government’s best kept secrets, but I fear that it has not performed as strongly as it could in driving people into work. In fact, I and others have real concerns that changes to the system could undermine it. Someone with a disability is 50% more likely to be out of work. A quarter of people who are registered blind are in work. That clearly means that 75% are out of work—those are shocking figures.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Charlie Mayfield report on how we can engage appropriately with the employment world, and on the positive lessons that can be learned from our nearby colleagues in Europe. I look forward to that coming forward, but perhaps the Government put the cart before the horse; the report should have been undertaken before the Employment Rights Bill was progressed.
Finally, I come to a policy that Liberal Democrats have voted against on three occasions in this Parliament: the two-child limit and the benefits cap. What choice was there for the widow and her children? I am shocked that the Conservatives have such heartlessness that they are turning their backs on those individuals. Some 4.5 million children—that is, every third child—live in poverty in the United Kingdom. In a visit that I made to Barton Hill academy in recent years, I asked the kids what they liked and did not like about Torbay. Their answers were not so much about things like litter; they were more about mum and dad not being able to make ends meet. I wonder how many of those youngsters were impacted by the two-child limit.
In conclusion, there are elements of the Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome, such as the ability that it will give us to manage the benefits bill, and a return to face-to-face assessments where possible, but others are totally derisible. We see the benefit system as being akin to our NHS: it should be there to support people in living their best life. We will therefore not support the motion.
Rebecca Smith
I am going to make some progress, if I may.
Youth unemployment had fallen by nearly 380,000, giving far more young people the security of a meaningful career. However, under this Government, the unemployment rate is set to reach 5% by next year, compared with 4.1% a year ago. We have already heard that graduate jobs have gone down by a third since last year, and we have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training.
So far, Labour has shown little appetite for making tough decisions. As we have already seen, the Prime Minister’s plan to reduce welfare spending ended with a U-turn, with key measures being ditched in a last-minute attempt to win over his own MPs. I do not think I will ever forget the day the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill became simply the Universal Credit Bill mid debate—a parliamentary pantomime, or even a farce, that encapsulates the Labour party’s inability to take welfare reform seriously.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has admitted that his much-anticipated review being conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Timms review, will not involve any welfare cuts. That means that our public spending will continue to rise, running out of control, and taxes will inevitably rise at the next Budget. Labour is now staring at a £9.3 billion welfare black hole. Scrapping the personal independence payment reforms alone will cost £4.5 billion by 2030.
To truly encourage people into work, we need to look at long-term solutions. It is easy to dish out sickness benefits. It is harder to provide the right combination of physical and psychological support to ensure that people facing challenges can keep or find meaningful employment. Yet these are the solutions we owe it to people to deliver, offering them a chance at a better future, one that is not entirely reliant on the state. That is why the Conservatives have set out a clear plan that will reduce the welfare bill by £23 billion. We urge the Government to consider our proposals.
First, we must prioritise British citizens in our welfare system. That means making the system fairer and preventing non-UK citizens from claiming benefits such as universal credit, the personal independence payment and the carer’s allowance.
Secondly, we must stop benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed off work sick every single day. This figure has ballooned to twice the size it was last year, mainly because thousands of people are signing up to benefits for less severe mental health issues, including anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Dr Luke Evans
One of the concerns I have when we discuss mental health in this place is the confusion between mental health and mental wellbeing. Everyone has mental wellbeing challenges—we saw that in the pandemic—but not everyone has a mental health issue. It is absolutely normal, for example, to get very anxious going to a driving test; it is not normal to have that response going to the supermarket. Those two things need different responses and different treatment; some might need support and help into the workforce, while medical support is needed for those with serious mental health issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that we acknowledge this discrepancy when we debate the issue, to ensure that we get the policies right for both the patient and the taxpayer?
Rebecca Smith
I bow to my hon. Friend’s medical wisdom. I agree that we need to give people hope and ensure that our policies tackle the most severe mental health problems. However, if is mental wellbeing that we are talking about, we need to do more to ensure that people have the skills and tools to stay in work, so that they can enjoy the future that they can have.
Given the right support, many people benefit enormously from the social interaction and sense of achievement that comes from regular employment. Holding down a job provides a sense of agency, and breaks the cycle of dependency. Enabling access to benefits for those whom we should be encouraging to work feels perverse and is a dereliction of duty.
Thirdly, we must increase face-to-face assessments for disability benefits. Since the covid-19 restrictions, the number of face-to-face assessments has tanked, with 90% now happening over the phone. This is unacceptable, and has opened the door to so-called sickfluencers, who are coaching people online on the right words to say to get the maximum amount of benefit. Insisting on in-person appointments will mitigate this issue. With the Chancellor now beginning to blame covid for the economic challenges she faces, other Departments should be free to acknowledge the same and crack on with changing things back—in this case, to in-person assessments.
Fourthly, we must reform the Motability scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Luke Evans ExcerptsTuesday 1st July 2025
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill and our wider welfare reforms seek to fix the broken benefits system that we inherited from the Conservatives and deliver a better life for millions of people across our country. Our plans are rooted in principles and values that I know many in this House share: compassion for those who need our help most, a belief in equality and social justice, that everyone should have the chance to fulfil their potential no matter where they are born or what their parents did, and responsibility for our constituents and our country as a whole, so that we ensure the welfare state is sustainable and lasts for generations to come. But the system we inherited is failing on all those counts.
Conservative Members left us with a system that incentivises people to define themselves as incapable of work just to be able to afford to live. They then wrote people off without any help or support, then blamed them to grab a cheap headline. The result is 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, and one in eight of all our young people not in education, employment or training, with all the terrible long-term consequences that brings for their future job prospects, earnings and health. The number of people on disability benefits is set to more than double this decade, with awards for personal independence payments increasing at twice the rate of increases in the prevalence of disabled people in our society, adding 1,000 new PIP awards a day—the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year.
Liz Kendall
I will make a tiny bit of progress, and then I will give way.
As I set out to the House yesterday, we have listened carefully to concerns that there would not be enough employment support in place quickly enough by the time the benefit changes come in. We are bringing forward an additional £300 million of employment support for sick and disabled people, delivering a total of £600 million next year, £800 million the year after and £1 billion in 2028-29—increasing our total spending on employment support for sick and disabled people to £3.8 billion over this Parliament—to ensure that anyone who is affected by this Bill will be offered personalised work, health and skills support, including access to a specially trained adviser by the time the legislation comes in.
Dr Luke Evans
The last Government introduced WorkWell pilots in 15 areas for 59,000 people, providing a multidisciplinary team package to get them back into work. Am I correct in thinking that the £300 million the Secretary of State is investing is built off the back of that pilot? Are they planning to continue the pilot and grow it? The results seemed to show that it had a strong record of getting people back into work while supporting their health. That is what this House wants to do. Does she agree that that is the case, and is that the funding?
Liz Kendall
Joining up work and health support is essential. I have been to visit some of the projects in place, and they are making a really big difference. We are building on that with additional investment, quadrupling what we inherited from the Conservative party. Joining up work and health support is very important, because good health and good work are two sides of the same coin, but this needs to be available widely across the country.
Let me turn to the specific measures in the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4 begin to tackle the perverse incentives left by the Conservative party, which encouraged people to define themselves as incapable of work by rebalancing the universal credit standard allowance and health top-up. I am very proud that we are delivering the first ever sustained above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance—the largest permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits since the 1970s. Some 6.7 million households—the lowest-income households—will benefit from the increase in the universal credit standard allowance, and it will deliver a £725-a-year increase in cash terms by 2029-30 for a single person aged 25 and over.
Having listened seriously to concerns about our original proposals on the UC health top-up for existing claimants and future claimants with severe conditions and those at the end of their lives, we will ensure that for these groups, the combined value of their universal credit standard allowance and the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation, protecting their income from these vital benefits in real terms every year for the rest of the Parliament.
Alongside those changes, schedule 1 to the Bill will ensure that people with severe lifelong health conditions will never be reassessed, removing all the unnecessary and unacceptable stress and anxiety this brings, so that they have the dignity and security they deserve. Yesterday we published draft regulations on our new right to try, which will guarantee that, in and of itself, work will never lead to a benefit reassessment, giving people the confidence to try work—something many people have called for for years.
I turn to clause 5 of the Bill, on personal independence payments. Yesterday I told the House that we have listened to the concerns raised by many Members, disabled people and their organisations about the impact of the new requirement for existing claimants to score a minimum of four points on at least one daily living activity to be eligible for the daily living component. Even though nine out of 10 people claiming PIP at the point these changes come in would be unaffected by the end of the Parliament, I know this has caused deep and widespread anxiety and stress, so we have changed our original proposals. The new four-point eligibility requirement will only apply to new claims from November 2026. This means no existing claimants will lose PIP because of the changes brought forward in this Bill, and anyone who currently receives any passported benefits, such as carer’s allowance, will also be unaffected by this change.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Luke Evans ExcerptsTuesday 29th April 2025
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 April 2025 - (29 Apr 2025)
Andrew Western
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance and, indeed, that all of our legal obligations have been satisfied as part of the consideration of this Bill. The imperative thing for me as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions is that we are supporting those who need the social security safety net, not the fraudsters who pick holes in it.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
One concern that we have is the change in the way that people conduct benefit fraud. Through the use of key buzzwords, they help people to navigate the system so that they are able to take out of it what is not theirs. Does he think that there is scope in the Bill, particularly in some of the new clauses, to include specific legislation to prevent people from using words and buzzwords, or from teaching other people how to cheat the benefit system?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman is correct that we have a problem with so-called “sickfluencers”, but as we will hear in the debate more broadly, the Government do have existing powers through the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 to take action in those areas if necessary. He is right to suggest that we should be doing more, and I encourage Conservative Members to reflect on what they did in this space during their period in power. He will be reassured to know that I have commissioned work within the Department to look at what further we can do, but in legislative terms—[Interruption.] I do believe that we have somebody crossing the Floor, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr Luke Evans
In their response to my question about sickfluencers, the Government said that relevant legislation is already in place. If that is the case, how many convictions have there been under that legislation? We could infer from that number whether or not the system is working and what we need to do. My suspicion is that we need these measures to be able to hold people to account.
Rebecca Smith
I echo my hon. Friend’s concern that the existing powers are not being used enough. I ask the Minister to give us further information on how those powers are being used and an assurance that they will be used further should our new clauses be unsuccessful.
We believe that creating a specific offence to target such online fraud would send the clear message to sickfluencers that what they are doing is not only morally wrong but illegal—something that clear gives them no alternative than to realise that they will be caught. If the Government continue to oppose our amendments because they believe the powers already exist to tackle such crime, I would be grateful if the Minister set out, at the very least, how the Government will ensure that that legislation is used to the fullest, particularly with regard to the DWP, given that Government amendments 75 and 76 refer to the PFSA specifically. We are keen to see how those powers can be used fully used as the deterrent we need to tackle DWP claims. I want to know that, after today’s debate and vote, sickfluencers will be left in no doubt that the full weight of the law will be used against them, as they actively defraud the state.
Our new clause 9 is on powers of arrest. We welcome measures in the Bill—first announced by the previous Government—to give DWP investigators greater powers to aid with their investigations, such as search and seizure, and there must be appropriate safeguards around that. This will bring benefit fraud investigations into line with tax fraud investigations in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is very welcome, but we want to go further and address other shortfalls in the DWP powers. New clause 9 would add the power of arrest to the powers given to DWP investigators and resolve the seemingly illogical current position: the Government want to give DWP investigators the power to enter and search a premises, seize, retain and dispose of material, obtain sensible material and use reasonable force, but not to arrest someone if the evidence shows that it is necessary.
In Committee, the Minister highlighted that the police would be able to carry out the arrest function on behalf of the DWP should it ever be necessary, but we question whether that is a sustainable position and believe that our new clause would ensure we do not place an additional burden on the police. This is not without precedent and would bring the DWP into line with the approach taken to serious and organised crime across Government, such as at HMRC and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
Our new clause 10 is on liability orders, because we are concerned about the seizure of assets. We want to ensure that the DWP does everything it can to recover funds fraudulently claimed, even when that money is no longer sitting in a bank account. It cannot be right that someone can use that money to buy expensive cars, flat-screen TVs or other luxury assets, which the state cannot then recover from them. Our new clause 10 would give the Secretary of State powers to apply to the courts to seize assets where someone has been found guilty of fraud and the funds have not been recovered in order to repay the state. In a similar vein to our sickfluencers new clause, we believe these additions are needed to send the strongest message to those who are knowingly defrauding the system that they will be caught and will have to pay.
New clause 10 does not just give powers to seize assets to the Secretary of State; it says that she must use them. The DWP has said that it can already do this, but we know through written parliamentary questions that those powers have not been used in the last five years, albeit the DWP could make use of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We believe there must be an explicit expectation that assets will be seized, and we need new clause 10 to ensure this is achieved.
Andrew Western
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, as I am short of time. New clause 1 would prevent recovery of carer’s allowance overpayments via the new recovery powers in this Bill, but the DWP would still be able to recover carer’s allowance overpayments through deductions from benefits or through deductions from PAYE earnings. This would place carers in an unequal position in regard to overpayment recovery, with recovery depending on whether they were in receipt of benefits or in PAYE employment. Even if I believed that that was what the amendment intended, suspending recovery of all carer’s allowance overpayments until the independent review has concluded would be disproport-ionate. There are safeguards and protections for those with overpayments, including appeal rights, affordable repayment plans and, in exceptional circumstances, the option to waive the debt.
I turn to new clause 21, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon, spoke to, and I will refer to new clause 8, which proposes to introduce a new offence of fraud against a public authority. In my view, that is already covered by existing offences, making the amendment duplicative and unnecessary. Fraud is already an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, regardless of whether the fraud is against public authorities or anyone else, is already in existence.
The Government amendments to clause 70 bring together the offences in sections 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 of
“possessing, making or supplying articles for use in frauds”,
with the offences of “assisting and encouraging” that are found in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. That allows us to tackle the issue that Committee members were concerned about—influencer-style offences, in which a person provides the knowledge needed to commit a fraudulent act through internet videos or manuals.
Andrew Western
I will not. I took an intervention from the hon. Gentleman on this subject earlier, but I am short of time. [Interruption.] Had he stayed for the whole debate, I might have been more willing to do so, but I responded to his earlier invention.
In my view, we simply need to enforce existing law. Similarly, new clause 21 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to introduce an offence of encouraging or assisting fraud. Again, in my view this is unnecessary, because that is covered by the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked for assurance that we would use the powers that we already have. As I said in response to interventions, I have commissioned work in the Department to look at how we can further use the powers that we have; in my view, historically, we have not taken best advantage of them.
PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance
Luke Evans Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but we will not withdraw the policy. We will certainly reflect on it, and we will consult properly on the content of the Green Paper. The figures published by the Office for Budget Responsibility yesterday showed that the benefit changes, on their own, will take 250,000 people, including 200,000 adults, below the poverty line, but that is before any consideration of the impact of the big commitment that we are making to employment support —up to £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament. That will clearly have a very positive effect in reducing poverty. The Office for Budget Responsibility will look at all of this over the summer and then update its figures in the autumn. We will see what it concludes, but I think the balance of this package will be very positive for reducing poverty in the UK.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
To help families, the last Government put in place the household support fund, which this Government have continued. However, it is due to run out in 2026, when the Minister’s changes are coming in. What hope is there for households who need emergency support if the household support fund will be dropped when his changes come in?
Sir Stephen Timms
We have retained the household support fund, as the hon. Member rightly points out, and the future arrangements will be set out in due course. However, I can reassure him of the absolute commitment of this Government to supporting families who need our support. The child poverty taskforce is working on this issue at the moment, and will bring forward a strategy to address the problem of child poverty. The figures published this morning on households below average income show just what a huge challenge there is, given the very high level of child poverty left by the previous Government. We will be addressing that.
Winter Fuel Payment
Luke Evans Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately
One of the things we would very much like to see is a full set of figures from the Government, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Government said they wanted everyone who was eligible to sign up for pension credit and therefore be able to access the winter fuel payment, but if everyone had actually signed up for pension credit, the Government would not have saved the money they set out that the policy would save.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Department for Work and Pensions states that it works to a planned timescale of 50 working days for processing applications. However, on 9 December, in response to my written question, it turned out that, at its peak just before the coldest period, it was 87 working days. Even now, the answer is that it takes on average 56 working days to get pension credit sorted. That is a problem, because the Government directed people to pension credit who cannot then get access to it when they need it, at the coldest time of the year. Is that not a despicable decision?
Helen Whately
Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. He has been every effective in his use of parliamentary questions to scrutinise the Government and get data from them—they do not like to give it willingly. He identifies the long delays for pension credit approvals and therefore access to winter fuel payment. Some will have applied before the deadline for pension credit and got the whole way through winter without getting money, or even knowing whether they were going to get any money. We know well from charities such as Age UK, which represents pensioners, that pensioners are very reluctant to get themselves into debt. If they did not know whether they were getting the payment, they would have been very reluctant to spend money in the hope that they might.
Helen Whately
I was indeed extremely shocked by that statistic; that is one reason why we need to have this debate today and try to get some of the data out of the Government. They were at the time, and continue to be, incredibly reluctant to share whatever they know about the impact of this cut on people, including the terminally ill.
Dr Luke Evans
Going back to data, this policy does not just impact pensioners, because the Government seconded 500 extra staff to try to deal with pension credit. We know, from another written answer, that those staff came from the services handling child maintenance, counter fraud, compliance and debt, so there is going to be an ongoing impact. Do the Government not need to be transparent about the impact on the Departments that have had to move staff across to try to deal with their own policy?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes an important point about transparency, and he recognises that this policy has had an impact not only on pensioners, but on other parts of Government, and therefore on other constituents. It is another thing that I hope the Government Back Benchers in the Chamber are taking note of, to pass on to their colleagues who, for some reason, have chosen not to be present to discuss this topic this afternoon.
Dr Evans
I am terribly grateful to the Minister. He made the point about there being 235,000 applications, which was great. In my written question, I asked about that and he came back and said 117,800 claims were awarded, but 114,500 were not. Those were clearly people who felt they were entitled to pension credit but who will now struggle. What support is available for those people, who are clearly right on the cusp and are now not eligible and do not have pension credit?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member makes an important point. We should encourage people to apply, even if a percentage of those will always not qualify. The criteria under which people have been assessed are those put in place by the previous Administration for pension credit. However, he is right; we want as many people as possible to apply, even if some of them are not successful, for exactly the reason raised by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—we need awareness of pension credit to be higher and we need to encourage claims, because a lot of people who are entitled are missing out. It is not always absolutely clear whether someone is entitled, for example if they are in receipt of attendance allowance.
All the progress since September that I have spoken about is a real achievement, but I am the first to say very clearly that it is far from job done. Far too many people are still missing out on pension credit. We are already building on this winter’s campaign, and that includes writing to all pensioners who make a new claim for housing benefit and who appear to be entitled to pension credit. In the longer term, this Government are committed to bringing together the administration of pension credit and housing benefit, making it easier for pensioners to get support. That was also a policy of previous Administrations at different times, even if delivering it was not prioritised.
We will also undertake new research on what helps boost take-up—that goes to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. There is a slight misunderstanding about people wanting to apply but being reluctant—the evidence does not support that significantly. The key problem is awareness of the system.
Joy Morrissey
I think our record speaks for itself—we had 14 years. It is very interesting that the Labour party talks about tough choices. For pensioners, turning off the heat—being made to choose between heating and eating—is a tough choice. That is a choice that this Labour Government have made for the most vulnerable.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend is correct that this is about actions, not words. Labour’s decision on the winter fuel payment was not in their manifesto; it was brought in with a piece of legislation that was voted on without an impact assessment and then put into place. Yesterday, we heard an announcement about disabilities that was also not mentioned in Labour’s manifesto. It was brought forward with a gap before the impact assessment—we will see that in a couple of weeks’ time—and it will then be taken through. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British public are being taken for fools? These are not transparent policies or policies that were put forward in a manifesto; they are being brought forward later on, under the guise of trying to do something better.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about transparency and keeping our promises to the British public, and it lays bare the truth about this Government.
Josh Simons
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a few more minutes, I will come to the exact question of the threshold at which pension credit is awarded and at which, therefore, someone is eligible for the winter fuel payment.
In order to reach the most vulnerable people, who are often the hardest to reach because they are not on Facebook and are not coming to my coffee mornings, I wrote to more than 5,000 pensioners to ensure that they received the support they deserved.
Let me end by making a broader point. Today’s debate has underscored a simple truth about Conservative Members. Theirs is no longer the party with the strength and courage to lead, whether in asserting the sovereignty of this place or in making arguments with principle.
Josh Simons
I will not.
The Conservatives knew that the winter fuel payment needed to change—they said so in their manifesto in 2017—but they did nothing about it. They knew that NHS England was duplicating, wasting taxpayers’ money and failing to drive up standards, but they did nothing about it. They knew that flooding was getting worse in places such as Platt Bridge, Ashton and Abram in my constituency, but they did nothing about it.
Let me give an even more egregious example from this week. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has stomped his feet and shaken his head about new guidance issued by the Sentencing Council. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that independent agencies should not make policy; this Chamber should. However, what the shadow Secretary of State for Justice is unwilling to confront is the fact that his party welcomed that guidance. The unequal treatment in the guidance has not changed, and he knows that. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice typifies what the Conservative party has become, and that has been exemplified in this debate. Conservative Members come to this Chamber shaking with outrage and spoiling for a spat, but they forget that they have been in charge.
Welfare Reform
Luke Evans Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
Yes. We will not get this right unless we draw on the huge strengths of our voluntary and community organisations. I have never believed that there are hard-to-reach groups; it is just that we need to change what we do. There is a lot we can learn from groups like those my hon. Friend mentions, because it really is a pathway to work. We have got to end this false divide between those who can and cannot work, and instead understand that there are steps towards a better life. That is what this Government want to deliver.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I have two practical questions. First, the Secretary of State said she is joining jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new time-limited unemployment insurance; what is that time limit? Secondly, she said there would be an expectation on people to look for work; what happens when they do not meet that expectation and what discipline is faced if they do not take that up?
Liz Kendall
The time limit is one of the things we are consulting on in the Green Paper and I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s views on that. On the expectation to engage, it is interesting that when we have started to free up our work coach time and offer support on the phone and in person, many people have come forward, because we are trying to change the culture. The Conservatives always leap straight to a position where people refuse to get involved. We have got to change that culture; that is the way that we will get more people on to that pathway to success.
Social Security Benefits
Luke Evans Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
In my view, the instruments are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 will increase relevant state pension rates by 4.1%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May to July 2024. It will increase most other benefit rates by 1.7%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2024. The Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension will be uprated by whichever is highest out of the growth in earnings, the growth in prices, or 2.5%. That will mean 4.1% for 2025-26. From April this year, the basic state pension will increase from £169.50 per week to £176.45, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £221.20 to £230.25.
We are fully committed to maintaining the pension triple lock. There is some confusion about the position of the Conservative party, and I hope that the shadow Minister will clarify the position when he speaks.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
On clarification, can the Minister clarify for how much longer the state pension will be taxed? The Conservative Government stood for election on a commitment to the triple lock plus. We lost the election, but we were going to take out that fiscal drag. Can the Minister explain how long that tax will stay in place?
Sir Stephen Timms
My understanding, from what the Leader of the Opposition has said, is that the Conservative party is no longer committed to the triple lock, let alone the triple lock plus. I can tell the hon. Member that we do not have any plans to do what he suggests.
Sir Stephen Timms
I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that his party appears to no longer be committed to the triple lock. We look forward to clarification on that point from the shadow Minister.
Other components of state pension awards, such as those previously built up under earnings-related state pension schemes, including the additional state pension, will increase by 1.7% in line with prices. The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes, so the safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 4.1%. For single pensioners, that means an increase from £218.15 to £227.10 per week; for couples, the increase is from £332.95 to £346.60 per week. We want everybody entitled to that support to receive it, which is why we launched the national pension credit campaign. We received around 150,000 pension credit applications in the 16 weeks after the winter fuel payment announcement.
Dr Evans
I am very grateful. We do indeed want more people to take up pension credit. However, one of the biggest problems is the processing time. The response to a written question that I tabled before Christmas showed that there was a 75% success rate in getting that done within 50 days, which means that that did not happen for one in four. I later re-tabled the same question, and it turned out that the standard had got worse. What work are the Government doing to make sure that applications are processed within 50 days? Especially when it is cold and people have had their winter fuel payment taken away, it is important that those who need that support get it as soon as they can.
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman is quite right; it is important that applications are processed speedily, and I am pleased with the number of applications. I can confirm—I think he knows this—that everybody who applied before 21 December will receive, if they are successful, their winter fuel payment. We have also moved extra staff on to pension credit processing. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise that point.
Universal credit and the legacy means-tested benefits that it replaces provide support for people of working age. We have committed in our manifesto to reviewing universal credit, so that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we will set out shortly how we plan to fulfil that commitment. For those below state pension age, the order increases the personal and standard allowances of working-age benefits, including universal credit, by 1.7%, in line with the increase in prices in the year to September 2024. In the Budget last November, the Chancellor announced that the maximum repayment deduction from universal credit payments will be reduced from April, from 25% of the universal credit standard allowance to 15%—the fair repayment rate—and 1.2 million households are expected to benefit from that change by an average of £420 per year.
In addition, the order increases statutory payments by 1.7%. That includes statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, statutory shared parental pay and statutory sick pay. Benefits for those who have additional costs as a result of disability or health impairments will also increase by 1.7%. That includes disability living allowance, attendance allowance and personal independence payment. The order will also increase carer’s allowance by 1.7%. The Chancellor announced in the Budget that, from April, the weekly carer’s allowance earnings threshold will be pegged to the level of 16 hours’ work at the national living wage. That means that, from April, unpaid carers will be able to earn up to £196 per week net earnings and still receive carer’s allowance, compared with £151 now. I am pleased to say that that move has been very widely welcomed, and we expect it to bring an additional 60,000 unpaid carers into eligibility for the benefit, and, crucially, to reduce the likelihood that carers who manage to combine some work with their caring responsibilities will inadvertently fall foul of the earnings limit, because, in future, that threshold will keep up with changes in the national living wage.
On disability and carer’s benefits, we will continue to ensure that carers, and people who face additional costs because of disability or health impairment, get the support that they need, and we will set out proposals for reform of health and disability benefits in a Green Paper in the spring.
Danny Kruger
My right hon. Friend replied, “No”, to the interviewer. We are not looking at means-testing the triple lock. She was talking more generally about the challenge of means-testing in our social security system, which is a legitimate question for us all to consider, as I shall go on to discuss.
I did not want to get too partisan in this debate, but—[Interruption.] Here we go! No, I won’t, genuinely, because the challenge of our welfare system is a shared problem that we face across the House. I will note in passing that our party’s record on welfare is a good one. We introduced universal credit, rationalising the spaghetti web of benefits that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman when he was last in office. We made work pay and helped people off welfare and into work, and we succeeded in that, with 4 million more people in employment in 2024 than in 2010.
Let me point out that we had another mess to sort out in the public finances. When we took office, the Government were running a deficit of 9% and the Treasury was spending way more than it was earning. By the time the pandemic struck, the deficit was down to less than 1%. We were living within our means and were able to afford the generous uplifts made to benefits and pensions in the last Parliament, as well as the huge package of support that we provided during the pandemic.
I want to be fair and admit that, as the Minister suggested, the welfare system is not working properly at the moment. Too many people are being consigned to a life of inactivity and dependency, especially via the categories of sickness benefit. It is bad for those people, their communities and the country as a whole, including the taxpayer, who spends £65 billion a year on incapacity and disability benefits, rising to £100 billion a year unless reforms are made by the end of this Parliament.
So what is going on? Those terrible figures reflect the fact that we have bad rates of physical ill health, including obesity and, as is strongly evidenced in the statistics, bad backs because we simply do not move around enough in the day. The figures also reflect a rise in mental ill health, which we see in alarming rates in schools and among young people. We have to do more on those issues through all sorts of interventions that lie more with the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care than with the Department for Work and Pensions. However, as the Lords Economic Affairs Committee reported last week, the rise in welfare claims cannot be attributed to worsening health or longer NHS waiting lists; the problem is growing far faster than that.
Perhaps the problem is low wages that do not attract people into employment, and that is certainly a reality. Low wages have driven demand for the immigration that we have seen get so out of control in recent years. Profound changes are under way in the world of work, away from secure employment towards a more precarious jobs market. Labour is destroying jobs, taxing employment and discouraging new hires with its new Employment Rights Bill. However, the fact is that wages have risen sharply above inflation in recent years, which is why pensions are going up by earnings this year. Employers are offering good wages but are not filling vacancies.
The issue is not health, although we have problems in health; the issue is not work, although we have big problems there—the issue is welfare. People are not being incentivised to take jobs because the offer from the welfare system is better. When I say welfare, I do not mean unemployment support. Thanks to universal credit and the last Government’s reforms, we saw record numbers of people move off unemployment benefit and into work. That is because we offered support to people to find work and imposed strict conditions that meant people had to actively look for a job. If they did not, they lost the benefit. That worked for a lot of people, but we found—here is the issue—that for a lot of other people, the incentives made them go the other way, further away from work into the sickness category, because that is where the good money is. In some cases, the money is double what they can get on unemployment benefit, and sometimes £3,000 more than the minimum wage. People almost certainly get it because the approval rates are high at over 90% for the limited capacity for work category.
This is big and unconditional money. There is no expectation to do anything about the health conditions that mean someone is signed off sick. There is no expectation of being reassessed any time soon or, indeed, ever. That is the challenge, and I hope the Government will rise to it in the same way that we rose to the crisis in unemployment benefit in the last decade.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
One of the ways the last Government helped to deal with this issue was by dealing with the taper. It was at 63% and it went down to 55%, so people who were working got more of their own money back. Does my hon. Friend believe that this is one way we could incentivise people to step back into the workplace—by having more of their money as they earn it?
Danny Kruger
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was a key part of the reforms brought in towards the last part of the last decade, enabled by universal credit—a much simpler system. I am glad to say that we managed to reduce that taper significantly and to incentivise work.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention on the same important topic raised by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon). I know that the Government are looking at this issue and at how we can reform the welfare system to support people to get the money they need and have the incentives and the right approach to welfare to help more people get into employment. That is the long-term sustainable route to reducing poverty and I hope we can do more to achieve it.
Dan Tomlinson
I am happy to give way, although I perhaps should make some progress.
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. Member makes a fantastic point about the family unit. The last Government were looking at introducing a measure on household income, particularly with child benefit, to try to make sure that we see people not as individuals, but as a group. That could stop such things as the child benefit cliff edge. However, the new Government took that measure away in the Budget. Would he make the argument to his Front Benchers that looking at household units—the family unit—is a positive way of seeing how we can support people?
Dan Tomlinson
That is important in some respects. One of the challenges with the policy that the hon. Member identifies is that we tax people on an individual basis and the benefits he refers to are often linked to the tax system. He raises an important point, and I am sure it is being considered.
I will make some progress and conclude my remarks. I am supportive of the increase in the state pension and of the triple lock. I know we have already had a little ding-dong about it, but it is the case that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said that the triple lock was unsustainable. Perhaps he was referring to the long term, but that still concerns me, not least given what I have said about young people benefiting most from increases in the state pension over time.
I am glad that in April the 20,000 pensioners in my constituency will receive either a £470 uplift if they are on the new state pension or, I believe, a £360 uplift if they are on the basic rate of state pension. That is incredibly important for living standards. I spent many years living with my grandparents part-time. They taught me a lot, and many of my values have come from them. We know how much care older people can provide to family and to their communities, and I see that in Chipping Barnet. At almost every community event, whether that is a local church, an institution or a charity doing good in the community, there are so many retired people giving their time and care, making Barnet—my corner of north London that I have the pleasure of representing—a better place to live. Providing that security in retirement is so very important.
Sir Stephen Timms
I have already spoken in the debate about the two-child cap, and we will be coming forward with the report and strategy proposed by the child poverty taskforce. On pensioner poverty, I think that substantial measures will be needed, and we will come forward with those in due course.
Dr Luke Evans
I am grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention. He talked about planning for the future and people understanding what is going on with their pensions. We have the WASPI example where that was not seen to be the case. The new Government are making changes to inheritance tax and where pensions fall, but much of the public do not realise that that will have big implications for them as their pensions will be subject to tax and inheritance tax. Would he consider a campaign to let people know that that change is coming in the next year or so?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am not quite sure what change the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but I certainly agree that people need to be confident about what the arrangements will be in the future so that they can plan accordingly. That is the one of the reasons why the pensions triple lock is important, as it gives people confidence about how things will be in the future.
We are: increasing the basic state pension and the new state pension in line with earnings growth by 4.1%, meeting our commitment to the triple lock; increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings growth by 4.1%; increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs and carers’ benefits in line with prices; and increasing working-age benefits in line with prices as well, at 1.7%. This year, GMPs accrued between 1988 and 1997 must by law be increased by 1.7%, which is the increase in the consumer prices index in the year up to September 2024. The GMP is important in giving people assurance about a level below which their scheme pension cannot fall. I commend both orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.
Pensions
Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.—(Martin McCluskey.)
International Investment Summit
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the International Investment Summit.
I am delighted to open this debate on the Government’s inaugural international investment summit, which we hosted at the Guildhall in London on Monday. Leaders of the world’s biggest companies, from Alphabet and BlackRock to Goldman Sachs and Novo Nordisk, came from all corners of the globe to meet Government Ministers and to listen to what our new Government had to say. Our message at the summit was clear: the UK is open for business once again. We have turned the page on the stagnation and instability of the previous Government, and in just over 100 days, this Government have put growth front and centre of our agenda and reassured investors that we will create the very best conditions for them to invest and to grow their businesses, restoring the economic stability and confidence for which businesses have been crying out for too long.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor made it clear that the UK has an enormous amount to offer, as did all the high-profile investors who spoke at the summit, including esteemed business figures such as Larry Fink, Eric Swartz, Ruth Porat and more. We have made clear our commitment to growth and restored economic stability, and we have given businesses the confidence that they need for the long term. Businesses are safe in the knowledge that the UK at last has a Government whose central mission is to grow the economy and stimulate private investment, thereby ending the chaos and churn of the last 14 years.
As both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have set out, increasing investment into the UK is the Government’s No. 1 priority to drive growth. Our mission-driven approach allows us to think in terms of years, not weeks, and to commit to the hard yards required to break down the silos that have too often prevented effective government and got in the way of real growth-driving change.
This is about ambitious policymaking for the long term, not sticking-plaster politics. As the Chancellor said earlier this week:
“If the challenge is growth, investment is the solution.”
I am delighted to say that, as a result of the stability dividend introduced by this Government, we announced a record-breaking £63 billion of shovel-ready investments across the country—more than at any previous summit, and more than double the total of last year’s summit—from global companies such as Eli Lilly, ServiceNow, Holtec and many others.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s success. Could the Minister tell us the proportion of that investment that came into play before the election?
Emma Reynolds
The agreements were reached in the lead-up to the summit and at the summit itself. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman joins us in congratulating the new Government on securing £63 billion of shovel-ready investment. I lost count of the number of Prime Ministers, Chancellors and Home Secretaries we had under his Government. I was working in the private sector at the time, and I often heard from businesses that said they did not have the stability, or even the predictability, of Government policymaking.
Emma Reynolds
I will not have a cross-Chamber discussion with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will make a contribution to the debate.
This Government are determined to increase the number of good, well-skilled jobs, to embrace the opportunities of technology and innovation, and to improve productivity across the country. At the international investment summit, we demonstrated that the UK has tremendous strengths. We have a dynamic, ambitious and globally connected economy that has long been at the forefront of global exploration, invention and innovation. We have a global language, a central time zone and a renowned legal system. We have a high-spending consumer market that benefits from an open economy. We have trade deals with over 70 countries, and we have world-class talent supported by our globally recognised higher education system, with four of the world’s top 10 universities.
One of my favourite moments of the summit was a panel chaired by our fantastic Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the creative industries and sport. I was delighted to have a photograph with Gareth Southgate, which I showed to my boys when I got home. In all seriousness, Gareth Southgate talked about how the Premier League was once just an idea and how it has been built and marketed into a world leader, creating great investment into our economy. I am sure the whole House will support that sentiment—
Carer’s Allowance
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “society” to the end and add:
“; believes it is essential that carers are provided with the support they need at the time they need it; condemns the previous Government for failing to address the scandal of demands for repayments of Carer’s Allowance; and welcomes the Government’s review into how these overpayments have occurred, what best can be done to support those who have accrued them and how to reduce the risk of these problems occurring in future.”
Let me begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). It is excellent that he has brought this subject to the House. I heard what he said about family carers as opposed to unpaid carers, and while I do not want to get involved in a big linguistic debate, I think he made an important point that will be recognised by many carers up and down the country. When we are making policy, we should always listen to those with direct experience. I think that the right hon. Gentleman made his point on behalf of millions of people, and it is good that the House has heard it.
Many people will be personally acquainted with this issue. There are 5 million carers in the UK and about 1 million people are receiving carer’s allowance, so this debate is extremely important. According to the latest census, just under one in 10 people in England and Wales provide unpaid care, but the subject of carers is not at the top of the political agenda nearly as often as it should be.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
When I was a clinician, people did not even realise that they could be labelled as carers and could apply to be carers, and were unaware of the gateway that that would provide. Might the Government consider doing some work to make more people aware that they are undertaking caring responsibilities, so that they can then obtain the support that is actually out there, if they only knew?
Alison McGovern
That is a very good point, and the hon. Gentleman’s experience as a clinician is welcome. The Secretary of State has considerable experience of working with carers, and I will alert her to his comments, because I think she would appreciate what he has said.
We must never think this is not an issue that does not affect us all. Many of us will become carers—if not now, at some point in our lives. This affects all of us, and everyone’s life is different. Support for family carers needs to be tailored so that it works for the individual and takes into account the different circumstances that people face. When you are caring for someone, that is a huge part of your life, and it never stops. Even if you are working, you are still thinking about that person for whom you are caring day in, day out. It is not just a physical job; it is a mental, intellectual job, and that is why the issue of stress and how carers are treated is so important.