Earlier this week I recorded a video for Armed Forces Day on Saturday 30 June 2012 – you can view it on Youtube here:
Following the Queen’s Speech two new bits of legislation have started the legislative process in the House of Commons. One is the Enterprise & Regulatory Reform Bill which includes the formal establishment of the Green Investment Bank (which arguably isn’t a bank, won’t have much to invest and may not be very green) in addition to changes to Employment Tribunals, which will introduce more conciliation and mediation to the process. The ‘wilder fringe’ ideas of Beecroft which I covered last month are not part of this Bill, nevertheless ‘deregulation’ was a major theme from Government backbenchers during the Second Reading debate on 11th June.
The other new Bill is the Electoral Registration & Administration Bill which introduces ‘individual registration’ of voters. At the moment registration forms are filled in by one member of a household on behalf of the whole household. The proposed system would also require people to show some proof of identity such as national insurance number when registering. There have been many concerns that this could lead to a substantial drop in the number of people registered to vote. This may be particularly so in places, like Edinburgh city centre, where there is a very mobile population and many multi-occupied flats. Registration is already very low there. The draft Bill was looked at by the Political & Constitutional Reform Select Committee which suggested several changes, the Government subsequently applied. Concerns remain and I spoke on this at the Second Hearing on 13th June (See http://bit.ly/Qpor4j).
More debate on Disability Issues
I attended a short Westminster Hall debate secured by a Labour colleague on the impact of the Work Capability Assessment (the assessment for eligibility for Employment and Support Allowance). This test has proved particularly problematic for people with fluctuating conditions like Parkinson’s. In these half hour debates speeches are only made by the person who applied for the debate and the Minister charged with replying. However I was able to make a couple of brief interventions. This debate brought out some interesting points, not least Minister Grayling’s statement that the ‘Gold Standard Review’ was underway, as previously promised. Previous questioning of the Minister had failed to get a date for this work. This Review will be looking particularly at proposals which have come from charities for a different way of assessing fluctuating conditions as well as ‘mental health and cognitive’ conditions.
Much of the debate on ESA has been around the WCA test, but this debate also touched on what happens to people who are placed in what is now called the Work Related Activity Group. This is for people who are not at the time of the test ‘fit for work’ but who are expected to recover in time. Parkinson’s is a particularly problematic condition in this respect. At the moment there is no cure and although the rate of impact differs greatly the concept of ‘returning to fitness’ may be problematic for many who will still be subject to repeated tests. Many people would welcome assistance to return to some sort of work but they report that in practice very little help is given. I’m keen to follow up the experiences of Parkinson’s sufferers in Scotland and plan to have a meeting with Scottish members of Parkinson’s UK over the summer. (Watch the debate here http://bit.ly/LEP7zD.)
On the following day I spoke in an Opposition Day debate on Disability and Social Care. This was wide ranging and considered benefits changes, the cost of care and what is happening to Remploy factories. Among other things I referred to a Report prepared by Learning Disability Alliance Scotland called ‘Worse Off!’ (see http://bit.ly/MD7Gzy) which had looked at the likely impact of the proposed tests for the new ‘Personal Independence Benefit’ by applying the proposed ‘test’ to real people and showing how the changes might affect them. See the debate at http://bit.ly/LEPmuq.
No success at PMQs this month, but several opportunities at Departmental questions of various types. At Scottish Questions I got the chance to return to the issue raised by my colleague Kezia Dugdale MSP about the re-badging of existing jobs as apprenticeships. The Minister agreed with our concerns. Sadly you don’t get a second follow-up question as I would like to have pointed out that there are similar concerns about the apprenticeships in England, boasted of by the Government he supports. McDonald’s for example renamed their new starts as apprentices and claimed for the training they would have done anyway. A spokesman from the firm stated in the Sunday Times a few months ago that they had created no new jobs with this money. See the question here: p4 http://bit.ly/LEPmuq.
I make a particular effort to be in both DWP and Treasury questions as these are the areas where I’m trying to concentrate. This month I managed to get questions in at both sessions although I hadn’t been successful in the ‘draw’. My question to the DWP was about the lack of hard information about work experience for young people. At Treasury questions I asked the Government to U turn on the withdrawal of Working Tax Credits for low paid couples working less than 24hours a week using, a real local example of how employers are increasingly offering short hours. See p13 http://bit.ly/Qpvsly and p13 http://bit.ly/Qpvw4S.)
Aung San Suu Kyi
The Burmese democracy campaigner spoke to a packed Westminster Hall last Thursday afternoon. She is the first non-head of state to be accorded this honour. We live in a society where we are free to be as cynical as we like about voting and politics, but hearing a speech like this is a salutary reminder of how important but fragile democracy is.
In all the many events I get invited to there are some which jolt you out of complacency (the choice of potential meetings and events some days is truly bewildering). A Carers’ Week event on Monday 18th June at Westminster did that for me. Billed as ‘speed-networking’ – presumably to attract busy MPs – it was an opportunity to meet a variety of carers and carer organisations.
I found myself staying longer than I’d originally intended because the stories were so gripping. One woman had spent several years caring for her father and an uncle who had both suffered from Parkinson’s. She then got involved in a local Parkinson’s’ Society only to have her husband struck down by the same illness. She cared for him at home for 16 years. He is now in residential care. Not only did her husband have to stop work early but she too had to leave work at age 52. Her own health has been affected and family income reduced by her early withdrawal from paid work. She needed to spend her savings adapting the house to meet her husband’s needs. She is now topping up her husband’s care home fees from her own pension.
At the other end of the age range I met a young woman who at age 16 became the main carer for her sister and her mother when her mother suffered a stroke. She had to leave school to do it. Now in her early 20s her mother is recovering a bit and she is trying to find some employment but she is finding that employers focus on the ‘gap’ in her qualifications and CV and do not rate her experience – as the household organiser, as advocate, in demonstrating responsibility and reliability. I’m sure if she could get through to the interview stage employers would soon snap her up, as her confidence and poise was remarkable.
Every year there is an outpouring of cross party sympathy from MPs towards carers. But there are huge differences of approach – at one of the ‘tables’ I networked with a Tory MP this came home to me when this MP declared that the problem was that ‘care’ was too expensive due to over regulation. Proponents of this view believe we should drive down costs and the ‘problem’ of social care will be solved. Seeing what has happened to home care Edinburgh, where the council has employed a policy of driving down costs through tendering makes me disagree profoundly with that opinion.
Craigmillar Books for Babies – five years of activities ahead, and remembering Helen Crummy
I am delighted to hear that the Craigmillar Literacy Trust has received a Big Lottery Fund award to facilitate Books for Babies activities over the next five years. Craigmillar Books for Babies is an early literacy project based in the area which works with mums, dads & carers with children under 3. The scheme promotes reading as a worthwhile activity to enhance children’s development. As a keen reader I am thrilled that the project is receiving this funding, which will now have the resources to approach families and young people in Craigmillar who might not usually engage with the projects. The full programme of summer events is available at www.craigmillarbooksforbabies.org.uk. I intend to drop into a Rhymetimes session over the summer.
On a similar note, members of the community in Craigmillar are seeking to erect a figurative statue created and erected outside the new East Neighbourhood Office and rename Craigmillar Library in her memory when it is opened. It is so important to the community in Craigmillar that we remember Helen’s work – not simply because she should be commemorated for all she fought for, but so that her legacy will continue inspire others, including the children that will benefit from the Craigmillar Books for Babies programme. She was determined that the people of Craigmillar should have access to the same opportunities in art, drama, and music as people from any other area of the city, and should be duly commemorated. I have written to the Neighbourhood Manager in support of the proposals; if you wish to view my letter, click here: http://bit.ly/LB21N0.
Innertube map 2012
I’m pleased to hear that ELGT, The Bike Station and the People’s Postcode Trust have started work to promote and enhance Edinburgh’s cycleways and off-road paths over the summer. Groups have already been out clearing fly tipping and tackling invasive species along many of the paths, so everyone can take advantage of the network over the next few months. I am also pleased that last year’s highly successful Postcode Challenge Treasure Hunt on Wheels will return on Sunday 1st July. For details of the work and the treasure hunt, go to: http://bit.ly/NwETwi.
Bike-related events are in full swing this time of year, and while I couldn’t attend Spokes’ bicycle breakfast on 20th June, I made sure I joined in totalpolitics call to get as many MPs as possible joining the I Love Cycling campaign – you can see my pledge here: http://bit.ly/N00IHj.
Protecting Guide Dogs
New figures that were released in June showed attacks on guide dogs are at an all time high and now running at an average of eight a month. The government is currently consulting on compulsory microchipping but has said its preferred option is to microchip puppies only. Under this plan, it would take 10 to 15 years before all dogs are microchipped. I have joined the campaign organised by Guide Dogs UK which calls for action to protect guide dogs from attacks by other dogs. Compulsory microchipping is one step that would make a real difference. Ultimately campaigners are calling for changes in the law so an attack on an assistance dog is treated as seriously as an attack on a person because the harm caused to the dog seriously impairs the freedom of the owner.
Property Conservation developments
Many of you will have read that the Director of City Development has been suspended from his post as the Statutory Notice investigation continues (see http://bbc.in/LPoX9G). Mr Anderson was responsible for overseeing the City Development department when it held responsibility for Property Conservation across the city. Back when I started receiving complaints, and before the investigation started, constituents and I experienced considerable delays when any complaints or simple queries were raised. At the time I didn’t feel that the department was handling the complaints properly or acknowledging that there were problems with the system. In light of the managerial suspension, I have written to Sue Bruce, Chief Executive of the City of Edinburgh Council, to highlight that many concerns were raised in advance of the investigation. The Leader of the Council, Cllr Andrew Burns, has also indicated that reports due before Policy and Strategy Committee in August will highlight how the Council will deal with the current problems and outline how a new service will function.
Campaign for High Speed Rail (CfHSR) update
Together with other Edinburgh MPs I am calling on Edinburgh residents to show their support for high speed rail. The Spectator has recently predicted that the Government is set to make a U-turn on its commitment to build HS2. It asserted that there was ‘a lack of enthusiasm among the people it was supposed to impress: northerners, Midlanders and business.’ Once the second phase of this major infrastructure project is complete, the Edinburgh to London journey will be cut by an hour to 3 hours 30 minutes, benefitting Edinburgh and Scotland as a whole. Scottish MPs have been calling on the Government to build the second phase beyond Leeds and Manchester and on to Edinburgh and Glasgow and it would be a disaster if the project were dropped altogether. HS2 will benefit Scotland from the outset, and today we are encouraging Edinburgh residents to show their support by going to www.campaignforhsr.com/signup
Southside buses update
Having written in the May edition about the re-routing of the number 2 away from St Leonard’s Street, I thought it might be welcome news that Lothian Buses has made further changes in the city centre to serve the Lauriston and University areas. For over 18 years there has been no direct bus linking Newington, the Southside and Tollcross, however, from the 24th June, the number 47 has been re-routed to serve the area. The 47 will run from Surgeon’s Hall via Nicolson Square, Potterrow, Lauriston Place, Tollcross, Festival Square and Lothian Rd to rejoin its former route at the West End. This will be the first time in decades that a bus will link Newington, Southside and Tollcross, and I am sure it will be a welcome amenity. The new route also provides a route to the West End which avoids the tramworks! The revised timetable is available at http://bit.ly/Or3fO6.
Late last month, I was very relieved to hear that one of Holyrood’s best loved institutions has been given a reprieve. I’m referring to the Bongo Club of course – after months of campaigning and petitioning the University of Edinburgh, the Bongo Club has had its lease extended for the Hogmanay period and into 2013. The extra time will allow the management of the club space to continue trading through the crucial festival period, before the management finds new premises. For the thousands of people who visit the Bongo Club every year and those who appreciate its value to the city, the news will be very welcome.
Over the summer months
Since the regulated period of the local elections ended I have been on a number of roving surgeries in Lochend, the Southside, and in the City Centre. When I hold a roving surgery I write directly to constituents and ask if they would like a visit, instead of advertising my usual surgeries which require constituents having to come and see me. Folk that I meet really enjoy the opportunity to raise their concerns in their own home. Holding the surgeries also means that individuals with mobility issues can speak to me without the worry of having to plan a journey. I intend to hold a few more roving surgeries over the summer – if you would like me to visit your street, please contact me on 0131 661 7522 email@example.com.
Dates for your diary
Saturday 30 June – Craigmillar Olympic Fun Day – 12:00-16:00 – off Niddrie Mains Road at Wauchope Terrace – more details at http://bit.ly/LrXRTo.
Saturday 30 June – Pride Scotia Rally and March – from 13:00 – meet at the City Chambers Quadrant, Royal Mile – further details at http://www.pride-scotia.org/
Sunday 1st July – Postcode Challenge Treasure Hunt on Wheels – 13:00-16:00 – for full details see http://bit.ly/NwETwi.
From Monday 2nd July to 14th July – Tuesday 3rd July –Bus Stop Lottery Photography Project Exhibition – free exhibition 10:00-16:00 – Craigmillar Community Arts Centre, Newcraighall Road
Tuesday 3rd July – The Welfare Reform Bill – What is it? Is it Right? Is it necessary? What can you do? –1830 onwards – Northfield Community Centre, Northfield Road.
Wednesday 4th August 2012 – Free Holyrood Wellbeing Walks (summer programme) – from 13:00 – every Wednesday until 8th August – book on 0131 652 8150
Thursday 5th August 2012– Edmesh 25th Anniversary Garden Party –13:00-14:00 – Duddingston Kirk, Duddingston Village – Edinburgh ME self-help group anniversary meeting, further details available at: http://bit.ly/Or0z2T.
Saturday 7th July– Portobello Organic Market – 9.30-13.30 – Brighton Park – full list of stalls can be found here: http://bit.ly/LCVBx5.
Saturday 28th July– Donkeyfield Community Orchard Workday – from 10:00 – Donkeyfield orchard near Brunstane Rail Station – further details at http://bit.ly/LrYoET
Craigmillar Books for Babies – summer programme available at www.craigmillarbooksforbabies.org.uk/whatson.htm.
Friday 10th August– Portobello and Craigmillar Family Summer Bash – 13:00-16:00 – Jack Kane Centre, Niddrie Mains Road – all activities are free
To sign up to future enewsletters, complete your details here:
I’ve written a piece on corporate tax changes for the Labour Campaign for International Development. I’ve reproduced it below:
Since April I’ve been sitting on the committee of MPs scrutinising the Finance Bill – the annual legislation that puts into effect announcements in the budget. The bill covers big issues such as the scrapping of the 50p tax and introduction of the granny tax.
One of the less publicised but nonetheless significant measures involves changes to the rules on Controlled Foreign Companies. These rules deal with the problem of multinationals attempting to avoid tax on profits liable to UK tax by artificially diverting them to subsidiary companies in other countries. The changes to these rules, which could have a big impact on developing countries and were discussed and voted on last week. This is what happened.
The UK previously operated a global corporation tax regime whereby if a company was headquartered in the UK it was required to pay corporation tax on the profits of any subsidiaries in foreign countries. In practice this meant that the UK headquarters were billed for the difference between what the subsidiary paid abroad and what it would have had to pay were it to be operating in the UK.
The last Labour Government launched a review of these 30 year old rules with the intention to move towards a more territorial corporation tax regime whereby the only profits that are taxed in the UK are those that arise from economic activity that takes place here. This was an attempt to encourage multinational companies to establish and expand their operations in the UK, although there were also concerns that the previous rules could be illegal under EU law. Despite the switch in Government George Osborne confirmed in Budget 2012 that he would press ahead with these changes.
Impact on developing countries
Following this announcement the development NGO ActionAid argued that the new rules would ‘open a loophole costing developing countries an estimated £4 billion and the UK £1 billion.’
This is best illustrated using the following example adapted from an ActionAid report Collateral Damage:
A UK multinational is made up of three subsidiaries with one in the UK, one in a developing country, and one in a tax haven. In an attempt to reduce its overall tax liability on profits across the company, management could transfer ownership of the company’s brand to the tax haven subsidiary and require the others to pay high royalty fees to use it.
However the current CFC rules mean that the UK subsidiary would be liable for the difference between the tax paid in the tax haven and the amount they would have had to pay had all the company’s profits been made in the UK. This discourages UK multinationals from artificially diverting profits from either the UK or developing countries to tax havens.
Under the new CFC rules only royalty fees from the UK subsidiary to the tax haven would be subject to an additional charge ‐ similar royalty fees from the developing country subsidiary would no longer be covered. This means that although the management would still have a disincentive to artificially divert profits from the UK, they would no longer have such a disincentive with respect to developing countries.
What went on in Committee
There were two amendments on these clauses considered by the Finance Bill Committee on 19th June (there were two sessions which can be accessed here and here). The first was moved by Stephen Williams (a Lib Dem) and would have prevented the provisions from coming into force until anassessment had been made of the impact on developing countries’ tax revenues. The second was a Labour amendment which asked for reviews of both the impact on developing countries and the UK tax base.
Treasury Minister David Gauke resisted both amendments. Broadly he argued that the advantages of making these changes outweighed the predicted loss of tax income to the UK. He also argued that the original rules were not introduced with a view to benefiting developing countries, but I pointed out that this shouldn’t mean the impact of changes is of no concern to us. The movers of both amendments drew attention to the potential for the new rules to undermine our international development efforts.
The Minister went on to say that it wouldn’t be feasible to produce the impact assessments because it would be too difficult to gather information from all countries that might be affected. He also argued that ActionAid’s estimate of a£4 billion loss was wrong, partly because it was allegedly based on data from only 10 UK multinationals. He said that many developing countries didn’t charge their ‘full’ tax rates in practice with many giving foreign companies ‘tax holidays’ to encourage investment. The Minister then managed to give a number of examples from countries such as Kenya and Rwanda – a remarkable amount of detail despite saying earlier that it was too difficult to gather the information needed for an impact assessment!
Gauke concluded by insisting that without these changes many more companies would leave the UK and that getting companies to stay or even relocate back to UK (such as advertising firm WPP) would be harder. He made the point that if companies leave altogether then no tax will be paid by them to the UK, and he claimed the benefits of encouraging them to stay would outweigh any tax lost from the changes. That said the Government clearly has its concerns about the potential for greater tax avoidance, with a new schedule to the Bill containing provisions to target no less than 10 anti-avoidance schemes.
At the end of the debate Stephen Williams withdrew his amendment. Labour sought a vote on ours but the arithmetic of the Coalition meant we lost by 13 votes to 18 with no abstentions. Frustratingly it is becoming standard practice for Lib Dems to table sensible amendments to obtain positive media coverage, only to withdraw them and vote against anything similar at the last minute (this was a recurring theme during the Welfare Reform Act’s passage).
Although pressure on time will be intense, my Labour colleagues and I will look to secure some further debate on this issue when the bill returns to the Commons Chamber at Report Stage. I’ll keep LCID updated if we are successful.
Yesterday I spoke in a debate in the House of Commons on Disability Benefits and highlighted how Government cuts will affect people on the ground. I’ve reproduced my speech below, and you can view the whole debate here.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): A lot of strange things have been said by Government Members: they say that the Labour Government did nothing to reform benefits, yet say, “You invented the work capability assessment, so you’re responsible for it.” It cannot be both. As a new Member in 2010, I came here intent on criticising the implementation, not the principle, of WCA, regardless of who formed the Government. I made that clear in one of my first speeches. The fact that someone might think it a good thing, in principle, to carry out an assessment does not mean that the specific form of assessment we have been using has worked.
I want to talk, in particular, about how the change from disability living allowance to personal independent payments is likely to take place. I draw attention to a report published in Scotland and based on work by the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland, which took the proposed test, as published, and ran workshops with about 135 people with learning disabilities to see how the test would work in practice. It found that 12% of DLA recipients would not be awarded PIP. Given that there are 24,500 people with learning disabilities in Scotland, nearly 3,000 could be at risk of losing their entitlement.
The report refers to one case study involving a woman with Down’s syndrome living in the Gorgie area of Edinburgh. At the moment, she receives the low level of the care and mobility components of DLA, which makes a huge difference to her life. The care component means that she can cook meals with fresh food, which is particularly important to people with Down’s syndrome, and the mobility component allows her to get reliably to and from her part-time job in a local supermarket. She can afford the bus fares and can get a taxi if she makes a mistake or gets lost. The awards also help her to cover additional costs. For example, a learning disability means that sometimes she leaves the heating on by mistake and so has higher heating bills. Her DLA means that she can pay these bills without too much worry and difficulty. Under the proposed test, however, she scored only four points, which would mean her losing £41 a week, or £2,000 a year.
The report found that 30% of those in receipt of the mobility component and 40% of those in receipt of the care component would receive less under PIP. For example, Frankie, who lives in a small town in a small group home run by a voluntary organisation, receives nine hours of support a week from paid staff as part of his living accommodation. He has a learning disability, cannot read, has a long-term health condition that requires periods in hospital and has mobility problems. At the moment, he receives the medium rate care component and higher rate mobility component of DLA. Under the PIP assessment, he scored some points in some areas, such as living needs—he needs help using appliances and understanding written communications—but that amounted to only seven points. That means he would not get those benefits and would be £85 a week worse off—£4,400 a year.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes to the legal aid system whereby access to welfare benefits advice will either be severely curtailed or not available at all will severely affect people’s attempts to appeal these decisions, which appear perverse?
Sheila Gilmore: As my hon. Friend says, there are considerable problems with people being able to access legal advice on making appeals, but it is extremely difficult to access advice generally, given the cuts. We are certainly seeing that in my city, where the advice shop—one of the main advice centres—cannot see people for two weeks. Consequently, appointments are made two weeks in advance. Following an assessment result, people sometimes get a letter telling them that they have three weeks in which to appeal, yet it is difficult for them to get even basic advice in order to make an appeal. That is the reality that people are facing on the ground, so we need to look hard at the proposed tests.
Another important aspect of this debate—the Select Committee on Work and Pensions draw attention to this, and I hope that the Minister will consider it seriously—is that if we follow the pattern used with the employment and support allowance, people will be tested and re-tested, even though nothing in their circumstances has changed. One of the Select Committee’s recommendations was that limits should be placed on the number of re-tests under the new PIP. That is not to say that people should not be tested, but if they are re-tested constantly we may run into the problem of people having their next test virtually before they have finished their last test or their last appeal. That is not helpful, particularly for people with mental health problems, for example.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con): Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a balance to be struck, in as much as those in long-term care—the very vulnerable people she is talking about—should perhaps not be subjected to re-testing in future, whereas the others are entitled to a face-to-face reassessment, and that that is what should happen?
Sheila Gilmore: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady, in the sense that there has to be the flexibility to look at people’s exact circumstances. The point I wanted to make is that we need to impose some limitations, because the stress of having to go through the process is extremely great for some people, and their illness can be made worse.
Although I have taken interventions, and therefore have extra time, I do not want to take up too much time, because one or two other people still want to speak. The Minister who opened the debate would no doubt respond by saying that we are scaremongering—that what we have described will not come to pass under the test and that everything will be fine. Indeed, she has gone further than that. She has said on numerous occasions that one of the reasons for having a new benefit and not simply changing DLA is that people who currently do not qualify—people with communications difficulties, she has suggested, or people with mental health difficulties—will now qualify under the new benefit. That suggests that more people will be entitled to PIP. I want to know how she can square that with making savings of the size that the Government say they want. If more people who do not currently receive the benefit will qualify, that suggests that even more people will claim than at the moment.
The Minister has also said that we should not worry about the tests because they are going to be a “conversation”, and are not really going to be a test. She has also said that we should not worry about the time limits on tests because a test should take as long as it takes. That all sounds wonderful, but I would like to know—the Minister has to answer for us—how it squares with cutting costs. Indeed, it will add to the administration costs, so is that included in the contract with providers? We do not really know what the terms of the contract are, and if those things are not in the contract, they will not happen. Therefore, for all the warm words about having conversations, being relaxed and the tests taking as long as they take, what the Minister has described will simply not happen unless we are given clarity on whether it is in the contract.
Edinburgh East MP Sheila Gilmore this week joined forces with Edinburgh based carers charity VOCAL to slam the Government over benefit cuts and the uncertainty this is causing for hard working carers.
Speaking during Carers Week, which runs from 18 to 24 June, Sheila Gilmore and VOCAL Chief Executive Sebastian Fischer criticised the Government’s plans to scrap Disability Living Allowance and replace it with Personal Independence Payment from 2013 and the uncertainty this is causing for carers.
Work and Pensions Select Committee member Sheila Gilmore said:
Carers do fantastic work in homes across the country.
However over the last year the position of carers has remained very difficult due to the uncertainty over the Government’s decision to scrap Disability Living Allowance and replace it with Personal Independence Payment from 2013.
Currently those caring full time for anyone in receipt of the middle or higher rate care component of DLA may be able to claim Carers Allowance (although this is a complex benefit and people should always seek proper advice). It is positive that these arrangements will continue under PIP. However George Osborne has made clear that the replacement of DLA with PIP will also involve a cut in the overall budget of 20 per cent, leaving many worried that if those they care for are simply refused PIP, they will lose Carers Allowance as a result.
The Government should always ensure that carers are given sufficient support. This isn’t just the right thing to do in and of itself, but if carers were to choose not to do the work they do, the financial cost to the state would be enormous.
Sebastian Fischer, Chief Executive of VOCAL (Voice of Carers Across Lothian) said:
Money matters when you are a carer, and when times are hard, carers are often hit hardest – forced to reduce or give up work, struggling to pay bills, and often cutting back on food and heating in order to make ends meet. Uncertainty over benefits adds to the increasing pressures and stress carers are under, with many sacrificing their own health and finances to continue caring. That is simply not acceptable for people who are Scotland’s largest unpaid workforce
- Sheila Gilmore wrote an extended piece for a recent VOCAL Newsletter on this same issue.
- Sheila Gilmore has posted a message of support on the Carers Week website.