At the end of last week, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee published "Supporting Carers to Care" which looks at the way in which Carers' Allowance (CA) is administered and delivered to those that need it. The Committee have followed up on a report published by the National Audit office this year. It is obviously a reasonable thing to do to reward those that perform caring duties that would otherwise by the state. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) spends £2 billion on CA whereas it is estimated that carers do work that would otherwise cost the state £23 billion. It is also estimated (although we don't actually know) that only 30% of those eligible actually receive it.
The Committee rightly emphasises the complexity of CA, pointing out that the underlying entitlements rules are difficult to understand and may put people off from applying in the first place. It cites the example whereby some carers have to apply for CA even though they are not entitled to it just so they can obtain a Carer's Premium or an Additional Amount as a 'top-up' to their existing benefits. Complexity is also compounded because an award of CA can reduce the benefit received by the person being cared for. According to the Committee the problem of complexity is made worse by the fact that the Department's communication with claimants can be 'lengthy incomprehensible and confusing' It supports this assertion by quoting from a standard letter-
"Dear … A decision has been made on your claim to Carer’s Allowance. …The details of the decision are as follows:- You are not entitled from 17/05/2007 to 20/05/2007. This is because entitlement must begin on a Monday. You are entitled to £48.65 a week from 21/05/2007. We cannot pay you from 21/05/2007. This is because the amount of State Pension you get is more than the amount of Carer’s Allowance we could pay you."
The Committee also finds that carers are poorly supported by staff at Jobcentre Plus who don't have a clear enough understanding of carer's employment needs and don't have the means to identify vacancies that would best meet those needs. The point is also made the Jobcentre Plus staff don't have sufficient incentive to find work for carers as their performance is measured by how many people they get into jobs that pay the minimum tax threshold.
The report makes the following recommendations:
- The DWP should make it possible for those carers only eligible for top up payments such as Carer’s Premium or the Additional Amount to apply directly for those benefits;
- the DWP should assess the effectiveness of its communications with carers by monitoring common enquiries and contact made by customers in order to identify letters and guidance which may need revision, and should act quickly to simplify them, using its customer groups, such as the Pensions, Disability and Carers Service Advisory Forum, to test simplified communications;
- the DWP should assess how well its publicity for the benefit reaches particular groups such as ethnic minorities, different age groups or people in different regions of the country so that communications strategies can be revised as appropriate;
- the Department should assess the effectiveness of its actions to enhance Personal Advisers’ skills and understanding, and to improve information about flexible job vacancies by seeking early feedback from Advisers and carers on job outcomes and staff and customer satisfaction;
- Jobcentre Plus should incentivise Personal Advisers to find employment for carers by including all part-time job outcomes in personal performance targets.
- The Department should share good practice across its new Care Partnership Managers, whose role is to strengthen links with other organisations and assist Personal Advisers in referring carers to appropriate support.
An additional point of interest is that the report presents in full the evidence given to it by senior DWP managers, in particular the evidence given by Sir Leigh Lewis who is the Permanent Secretary (ie the overall boss) at the DWP. when challenged about the needless complexities involved in obtaining CA, Sir Leigh responded with "....the truth is we have a very, very complex benefits system in this country with some 25 different benefits. The complexity has grown up piecemeal over many years, for which, if I may say, we are all a bit culpable—the legislature, the executive, etc.We have tended to add complexity at every turn and we have a hugely complex benefits system". He also informed the Committee that the letter quoted above was being re-drafted and is due to be piloted from June to September- this will then roll out nationally in November. This of course beggars the question why they hadn't worked out for themselves that the letter was unacceptable, don't they have quality control at the DWP?
The recommendations in the report are fairly sensible but I would question whether they go far enough. I think that the basic point must be made that even if all carers were currently able to claim CA then this would cost the taxpayer £6 billion per year whereas if all carers stopped carrying out their caring duties then this would cost the taxpayer £23 billion per year. Therefore it would seem that the taxpayer is at least £17 billion in front which suggests to me that carers are being exploited by the state. I know that the DWP's view is that CA is not a wage for caring but surely there has to be some leeway in the system that could make carers' lives more bearable. I would suggest that a start could be made by increasing the weekly amount by 25% and increasing the earnings limit to £120 per week after deductions. I would also relax the underlying entitlement rules (until a better way can be devised) by an equivalent amount and I would remove the punitive measure which takes away some disability benefit from those being cared for when an award for CA is made.
With regard to complexity, this is a problem because Parliament has piled unsatisfactory pieces of legislation on top of other welfare laws going back many years. What is needed is a complete overhaul of the benefits system with unifying legislation that allows us to start again with a regime that is reasonably clear and makes sense.
From the Benefitsnow Newsletter October 2009 http://www.benefitsnow.co.uk/
We hope you find the information below to be useful. If you have any comments please e-mail john@benefitsnowshop.co.uk. |
