Creative Industries: Qualifications

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Keeley]

That this House takes note of the role of the current level 3 qualifications for the creative industries, and of the potential impact of their replacement with T Levels and V Levels on the creative industries.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate on the important role of current level 3 qualifications for the creative industries and the potential impact of their replacement with T-levels and V-levels. While this debate affects the wider creative industries, I will focus on music education and the BRIT School as case studies to draw out the current strengths and some of the risks of the Government’s reform proposals. I thank UK Music and the Musicians’ Union for their support with a briefing for this debate, and the BRIT School, the University of the Arts London, Rockschool/RSL Awards, the ISM and the BPI for briefings.

At its heart, this debate is about whether replacing large numbers of existing level 3 qualifications, such as extended diplomas and BTEC nationals, will improve quality and clarity or will reduce choice for learners and remove programme pathways that currently enable many young people to succeed.

This issue has been a source of concern across the creative sector and among awarding bodies, including the University of the Arts London, since the reforms to post-16 education were first proposed by the Conservative Government in 2019. Those reforms sought to simplify level 3 qualifications around A-levels and T-levels, while removing public funding from qualifications deemed to overlap with them. However, campaigners argued that this risked removing successful applied qualifications which served different learners and different purposes.

It was therefore right that the Labour Government reviewed those reforms in 2024. My noble friend the Minister, writing about that review in FE Week in September 2024, stated:

“Where the review identifies the balance of learner and employer needs within a sector requires level 3 qualifications other than T-levels and A-levels, we will maintain the relevant qualifications. This may well be in areas that overlap with T-levels, which is a change from the approach”


of the previous Government. For creative subjects, and music in particular, that principle is essential. However, in October 2025, the Government’s White Paper on post-16 education proposed the introduction of V-levels and T-levels to replace many existing qualifications. I feel it is important that in this debate we consider the potential implications for the creative industries before any more work is done to make changes.

The UK music industry is one of our great success stories. It generates £8 billion a year for the economy, supports 220,000 jobs across the country and projects British culture around the world. Yet every performer, producer, composer, sound engineer, technician and educator begins somewhere. If we weaken the educational pathways into music, we weaken the future workforce of the sector itself. Music education is not simply about producing future music professionals. It equips young people with creativity, confidence, resilience and the skills of collaboration, and it improves well-being while delivering significant cultural and social benefits.

The music industry has concerns about the proposed reforms. Reflecting these concerns, I will argue for four specific adjustments to the Government’s proposals. First, the Government should be willing to keep existing successful vocational level 3 qualifications. Secondly, they should work with industry and educators to develop larger V-levels that meet the needs of the creative industries. Thirdly, they should consider whether the T-level model can work to address the technical skills needed in the music sector, and with industry and educators to develop music T-levels that are appropriate for the sector. Fourthly, they should take urgent action to address the decline in A-level music.

On the case for retaining existing Level 3 qualifications, at present, V-levels are a blank slate. They could become successful qualifications if they build on the strengths of established ones but, until that happens, it is vital that successful applied general qualifications, including extended diplomas, remain available. That is particularly important because the numbers taking vocational music qualifications are growing, at a time when GCSE and A-level music entries have been declining. Between 2018 and 2021, the number of pupils taking vocational music qualifications after key stage 4 increased by 48%, demonstrating strong demand and significant untapped potential to engage young people in music education.

The IFS has argued that the Government’s post-16 reform proposals are especially likely to affect those groups who benefit most from vocational pathways: students from lower-income backgrounds, pupils eligible for free school meals, students with special educational needs, students with disabilities, and those who are not yet ready for T-levels. The Cultural Learning Alliance reports that 54% of schools in the most deprived fifth of local authorities have no GCSE music entrants, compared with 21% in the least deprived fifth. Any reduction in proven vocational pathways is therefore likely to have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged young people.

Successful institutions such as the BRIT School rely heavily on qualifications such as the UAL level 3 extended diploma. There remains no clear like-for-like replacement, and that is putting proven pathways at risk. The value of these pathways can be seen in the achievements of BRIT School alumni including Amy Winehouse, Raye, Olivia Dean, Jessie J and Katie Melua. Over 30 years, the BRIT School has shown how specialist vocational education can transform opportunity. In 2025, 98% of its students progressed to higher education, apprenticeships, employment or further training. The BRIT School warns that if future qualifications move away from the characteristics that have made vocational creative education successful—accessibility, depth of learning and authentic assessment —there is a real risk of narrowing the pipeline of talent entering what is one of the UK’s fastest-growing sectors. Can my noble friend the Minister therefore clarify whether she will look again at retaining current creative sector level 3 qualifications?

If some existing qualifications are ultimately replaced, it is essential that any replacement can serve the same function. The proposed model of small V-levels, equivalent in size to a single A-level, is seen as unlikely to equip students sufficiently for further study or skilled employment in music and the performing arts. Progression within music, the performing arts and other creative industries requires learners to build a portfolio of creative, technical and professional skills over time. Applied level 3 programmes, equivalent to three A-levels, are particularly well suited to supporting that progression.

The proposed focus on V-levels risks dismantling established two-year programmes, including the UAL and RSL extended diplomas, which currently provide successful progression routes into higher education and skilled employment. In specialist areas, such as music performance or music technology, there is a fear that learners could be left without a coherent programme of study. There are also concerns about whether campuses delivering a broad range of subjects at single V-level may lack the specialist facilities—such as recording studios, rehearsal spaces, and music technology equipment—essential to high-quality music performance, composition and music tech courses. I hope my noble friend the Minister can tell me whether the Government will actively consider the larger V-levels, equivalent in size to current extended diplomas, for specialist creative subjects, as recommended by the Becky Francis review.

The question of larger V-levels leads directly to my third point: T-levels. At present, there is no music T-level. However, the challenge is not simply the absence of a music T-level but that the current T-level model is not seen as compatible with the realities of employment within the music industry and other creative industry roles. The music industry is characterised by freelancers, portfolio careers, micro-businesses, project work and self-employment. The proposed T-levels, with their one-size-fits-all lengthy industry placement and narrow and prescriptive national occupational standards, are seen as incompatible. The Curriculum and Assessment Review explicitly recommended a large, flexible V-level for creative disciplines. Replacing this with a single, narrowly defined T-level risks misunderstanding how careers in music develop. Without significant structural changes to T-levels, it is difficult to see how T-levels in their current form could achieve broad uptake among music learners and the music sector.

A triple-size V-level would be much more likely to meet the needs of learners and the music sector. The Government could also work closely with the music sector to develop a broader variety of T-levels that address the range of technical skills needed in the music sector. However, that would need to be accompanied by the financial support that would enable SMEs and other small music businesses to offer placements. So, alongside considering a large, flexible V-level, will my noble friend the Minister commit to working directly with music industry employers, educators and representative bodies to develop a qualification framework that genuinely reflects employment patterns within the sector?

We cannot discuss post-16 education in isolation from what happens earlier in the system. The decline in A-level music that we are seeing begins with declining opportunities to study music at earlier stages of education. To ensure the health of the creative talent pipeline, we must also address the decline in A-level music as a matter of urgency. As I said in our recent debate on live music, our Labour Government inherited an education system in which the EBacc had squeezed music education from the curriculum, damaging both music teacher recruitment and retention and contributing to declining GCSE and A-level entries. A-level music remains in crisis. Entries have fallen by 41% since 2013 to a record low of 4,635 students, while GCSE music entries are around 27% lower than in 2010. Disturbingly, in 18 local authorities, either only one school offers music qualification, either A-level or vocational, or no schools do. That declining trend must be reversed if we are serious about protecting the music talent pipeline into universities, conservatoires, orchestras and the wider music industry.

The Government’s planned reforms to EBacc and Progress 8 should help strengthen arts provision and encourage greater uptake. However, reversing the cumulative effects of many years of curriculum narrowing and funding pressures will require additional action. That should include reforming A-level music in close collaboration with the music sector; broadening the syllabus to reflect the diversity of musical traditions, including black music, that are shaping contemporary British music; completing the current GCSE music review in partnership with the sector; and investing in the music education workforce by improving recruitment and increasing teacher training incentives. Finally, it should include expanding access to music-making opportunities in and beyond school for children from lower-income families.

As I have said, the case for music education extends beyond the needs of the creative industries. Academic research has consistently demonstrated its benefits for cognitive development, the acquisition of adaptive and collaborative skills, and mental health. Research by Making Music and the Association of British Orchestras found that most adults who received music education or learned an instrument at school credit it with providing vital skills that supported their careers, regardless of sector. As we heard on Monday, my noble friend the Minister progressed with both the piano and the cello, so she will understand the skills that she acquired.

Studies suggest that pupils who continue learning music throughout school tend to achieve higher academic outcomes than their peers. Public support for music education is strong. Research commissioned by UK Music found that more than half of parents whose children learn an instrument believe that it enhances creativity, confidence, perseverance and resilience. These educational and social benefits should be considered alongside the economic value of music education when decisions are being made about future qualifications.

This debate is fundamentally about talent, opportunity and growth. The United Kingdom’s creative industries are admired throughout the world, but their future success is not guaranteed. It depends on the choices we make now about education and skills. The question before us is not whether reform is needed but whether reform expands opportunity or narrows it. My concern is that, unless the Government build on what already works, some of the most successful pathways into our creative industries may be lost. Existing level 3 creative qualifications have enabled thousands of young people, including many from disadvantaged backgrounds, to progress into higher education, skilled employment and successful careers in the creative industries. Unless suitable alternatives exist and are shown to work, those pathways should be protected. I therefore urge the Government to retain successful creative level 3 qualifications, to work closely with industries and educators on larger V-levels and fit for purpose T-levels in technical music skills, and to take urgent action to reverse the decline in A-level music.

If we get this right, we will do more than reform qualifications; we will widen opportunity, strengthen social mobility, secure the talent pipeline for our world-leading creative industries, and ensure that the next generation of musicians, producers, composers and creative entrepreneurs can fulfil their potential. That would be good for our young people, good for education and good for the future prosperity of our country. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s reappointment, and I was glad to hear almost everybody else mention that. We are so glad to see her back with us and thank her for what she has just said.

I shall reflect for a moment or two on the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, raised the In Harmony scheme. I had not heard of it, but that could be a good descriptor for this debate because we have been harmonious in what we have said. We obviously think across the piece that the BRIT School is wonderful and the creative industries are vital for the economy, as evidenced in successes in places such as the BRIT School and, I will hazard, although I have not been there, the In Harmony scheme as well.

I did not know about the issues in City & Guilds which the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, raised, but she said, and it is important, that we should have extreme caution about replacing qualifications that have stood the test of time—absolutely. That has been echoed by many noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Knight illuminated us about his role in “Oliver!” and founding a company with Sam Mendes, which is another theme, it seems, for today. My noble friend was clear-headed about the category error that T-levels are technical and creative skills and careers are not, as many others have said.

My noble friend Lady Warwick raised another theme: that the creative industries are vital, so we cannot afford to get it wrong. Many contributions have made that point and that we need people who can work with fluidity between disciplines. She made the point that arts and vocational qualifications have already been squeezed by earlier policy decisions.

I should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on squeezing in the subject of first past the post and the Nuffield report on the position of women working in the creative industries—that was very creative in itself.

I thank my noble friends Lord Isaac and Lord Knight for their work in gathering information that went into the briefing. That was useful, but my noble friend Lord Isaac made the point, echoed by my noble friend Lord John, that we should not damage successful qualifications.

The noble Baroness, Lady Caine, brought her extensive experience in the creative industries, and particularly in screens, and said that one-size-fits-all is the wrong approach. She asked, quite importantly, what removing funding from existing qualifications means for, for instance, the screen industries, and whether it could put at risk regional clusters, such as those developing in Birmingham. That is an important point.

From the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, we heard about the project-based reality of the film industry. That has to be recognised. She made the point that collaborative skills and deeply immersive craft skills are needed, and that single V-levels would not provide the fluidity needed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, was a roommate of mine, but I did not know that she had fashion industry experience, but looking at her I am not at all surprised. The important point was made that DCMS and DfE need to jointly assess whether these qualifications are suitable.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, on working on the Protect Student Choice campaign. That clearly did some good, and meant that tens of thousands of young people were able to do courses and were not defunded. He asked what role UTCs would have, which is an important point.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, had a link to Sam Mendes, which has been an interesting aspect of this. She made the point that the creative industries are unique, so it has never been about training for a particular job or role. It is not one-size-fits-all.

I very much welcome what my noble friend the Minister said about the creative advisory group. I urge her to include the music industry in that, because it is very insistent that it wants to be heard. I welcome the other point she made that it is not just about simplifying qualifications.

Finally, to go back to what I said earlier about the BRIT School, future qualifications should not move away from the characteristics that have made our vocational creative education so successful. We do not want to narrow the pipeline of talent which we so value in our creative industries.

Motion agreed.

Music Teachers: Recruitment

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Keeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps, if any, they are taking to recruit more music teachers to bridge the gap caused by missed recruitment targets in past years.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, alongside improved teacher retention, 369 music teacher trainees started training last year—a 55% increase compared to academic year 2023-24. Music teachers are a key part of our pledge for 6,500 additional teachers and we are making good progress, with over 70% of that target achieved. We recently announced a new pay award, including for music teachers, and accepted the recommendations of the independent body, meaning that schoolteachers will see a 17% increase in pay since this Government took office.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, under Conservative-led Governments, the EBacc and Progress 8 worked to squeeze music out of the curriculum. Recruitment targets for music teacher training were missed for 11 out of 12 years. In fact, the number of music teachers fell by 850 between 2011 and 2023. I am sure that the Labour Government’s reforms will strengthen provision, but the music curriculum is also constrained by music teacher workforce supply, which is fundamentally a question of unequal opportunity to choose music as a subject. Will my noble friend the Minister look again at teacher training incentives, such as the bursary, and at re-establishing ambitious recruitment targets?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We look at the subjects to be covered by the bursary on the basis of need and difficulty in recruitment. Given the encouraging improvements in music teacher recruitment over recent years, we have decided not to continue the bursary this year. My noble friend also made an important point about the curriculum, and we have already reformed the EBacc accountability measure and removed it, because it limited children’s choice of what they learned at school. Through the curriculum and assessment review, we will bring about further improvements in the music curriculum.

Ballet

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is definitely not right that the noble Baroness has no talents. Anybody who saw me on “Strictly” will know the extent of my dance talents. Anyway, I reiterate that the Government have given support to the music and dance scheme. It will provide generous support to help students access specialist music and dance education and training, with £36 million committed for this year. As the noble Baronesses have said, the aim of the scheme is to identify and assist children with exceptional potential, regardless of their personal and financial circumstances, to benefit from world-class specialist training. That is very much in line with the Government’s ambition to support dance and the performing arts, both in education and more widely, and we will endeavour to give certainty about next year’s funding for that as soon as possible.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot really compete with what has been said about dance specialisation because I ceased my dance classes at three. I want to expand a little on the music and dance scheme in schools, and I have raised this with my noble friend the Minister before. She knows that they are calling for the restoration of three-year settlements and an increase in funding, which has been frozen or increased by under inflation since 2011. It is so difficult for the schools when the budgets are not finalised, or are finalised so late, because schools are having to take a gamble on what their funding will be, and they can lose prospective students who will not gamble on taking up a place with that uncertainty. Can my noble friend give us another assurance about the future of this scheme and the level of its funding?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend gives me the opportunity to say, yet again, that through both the music and dance scheme and the dance and drama awards for students studying specific level 5 performing arts qualifications, the Government have maintained their support for those students to ensure that access is widened. I hear the point that my noble friend and others have made about certainty of funding. It is not an excuse, but there has not been multiyear funding for the music and dance scheme since 2020. I quite understand why schools want that longer-term funding certainty. We will continue to do what we can to provide timely—and, if possible in the future, multiyear—funding arrangements, but at the moment that has not been possible.

Schools: Music and Dance Scheme

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Keeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the funding of the Music and Dance Scheme to ensure schools can continue to support talented children from families with lower incomes.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to revitalising and widening access to arts education, including specialist education for our highest-achieving musicians and dancers. We continue to fund the music and dance scheme, providing bursaries to over 2,000 students. This remains means-tested, targeting support for students from lower-income families. Funding for the academic year 2026-27 onward will be announced in due course, and for the longer term will be subject to the next spending review.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response. In earlier debates, noble Lords have raised concerns that funding for this vital scheme has been frozen or increased only below inflation since 2011-12, and since 2022 grants have been limited to a one-year settlement. The eight music and dance scheme schools are currently auditioning pupils for entry later this year. The Hammond school in Chester told me that last year 30% of the pupils offered a music and dance scheme-supported place ultimately declined, despite meeting the talent threshold and wanting to attend. Families mainly cited uncertainty about the scheme’s long-term funding, particularly beyond the first year. Talented children from low-income families are not progressing to the specialist training that they need because the financial risk is now too great. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that this loss of future talent in dance and music can be prevented through more secure funding of the scheme?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that since 2010 funding for the music and dance scheme has been largely static. In fact, in some years between 2010 and 2020 it was cut in cash terms. I understand the concerns of the schools that my noble friend is representing here and, of course, the students and the highly talented young people who can benefit from them. I assure my noble friend that the fact that we have not been able to announce funding yet does not mean that we are not committed to the scheme. She will understand that the ability to offer longer periods of certainty is dependent on the spending review and our business planning, but the case has been made strongly by my noble friend and others.

Teachers: Music, Drama, Art and Design, and Dance

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Keeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they will take to support an increase in the numbers training to be teachers of music, drama, art and design, and dance.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are working with the sector to re-establish teaching as an attractive profession across all subjects, including the arts. That is why this Government have increased teacher pay by almost 10% over two years and are providing bursaries this year worth up to £10,000 for trainees in art and design and in music. We are already seeing a positive impact. The number of new trainees and teachers has increased significantly in art and design and in music over the past year.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. The undervaluing of music in state schools by successive Conservative-led Governments since 2010 led to the loss of over 850 full-time equivalent music teachers since 2011; high vacancy rates and poor retention rates of music teachers, with only two-thirds of those who qualified five years ago still teaching; and music teacher recruitment targets being missed 11 times in 12 years. There is a great deal for the Labour Government to do. Sustained bursary funding for initial teacher training has shown more stable recruiting. Can my noble friend look at reinvesting in the music teacher training bursary and then sustaining it for a number of years? That must be backed by Ministers who emphasise the central place of that music teacher training bursary rather than just those for science and maths.

Curriculum and Assessment Review

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she asks for on the development of the oracy framework. As she has identified, being able to speak and listen is an enormously important skill that employers say they need young people to have. On the point about media literacy, as she says, in a world in which young people need to distinguish misinformation and disinformation, it is enormously important that they are supported with media literacy. That is why media literacy will be embedded in English, in history and in citizenship. I share her view about the importance of the BBC, both at home and abroad.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Curriculum and Assessment Review, particularly the removal of the EBacc, which has damaged the provision of arts and music education in state schools. I also welcome the emphasis on both media literacy and music provision in the curriculum. It is important to highlight the significant inequalities in access to music in state schools. The annexe to the review highlights that in 2023-24, one in four young people may not have been able to access a music qualification at key stage 4 in their school, even if they wanted to.

A further aspect of inequality highlighted in the review concerns those pupils whose parents cannot afford extracurricular tuition. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the Government will double down on these inequalities to ensure that the ability to read music and play an instrument becomes available to all students in state schools, and that the number of specialist music teachers will start to be restored to the much higher level it was at in 2011?

Carer’s Allowance

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on leading it.

For years, many charities, campaigners and carers have called for wide-ranging reform of carer’s allowance. The petition that we are debating focuses specifically on how much carer’s allowance should offer carers, so I will begin my contribution by addressing the financial pressures that carers face.

Carers UK estimates that over a quarter of carers live in poverty, which rises to nearly half of those who care for someone for more than 35 hours a week. Often, people in receipt of carer’s allowance face particularly difficult financial situations. The poverty rate for people in receipt of carer’s allowance has doubled in the last decade and a survey by Carers UK shows that 45% of people receiving carer’s allowance struggle to make ends meet, which is a significant increase on the previous year.

The causes of financial difficulty for carers are frequently linked to their caring responsibilities. Of course, carers face additional costs, which are unavoidable, to keep the person whom they care for safe. Such costs can include vital but high-energy equipment, the costs of additional laundry and bathing needs, and transport costs for visits to medical appointments.

As we have already heard in the debate, carers also have a limited ability to earn an income. If they are in receipt of carer’s allowance, they can earn only £151 before losing that benefit. This month, the earnings threshold for claiming carer’s allowance increased below the national living wage, which means that carers on the lowest wages will have to cut back their hours to just over 13 hours a week or risk losing the benefit. For some, this will be the equivalent of losing 13 days of work a year, which is a substantial loss. In addition, as we have already heard but it bears repeating, there is an issue for carers in full-time education—young carers—because they lose eligibility for carer’s allowance when they study for more than 21 hours a week. Therefore, many young people are excluded from support.

Those eligibility requirements and others limit the support that carers can receive through carer’s allowance. Most importantly, however, around 34% of carers in receipt of carer’s allowance are still in poverty. Clearly, carer’s allowance is failing to give enough financial support to the people who provide unpaid care to others. It is ridiculous for the Government to claim in response to the petition that they

“recognise the invaluable contribution that unpaid and family carers make”,

given that so many carers clearly do not receive the support they need.

The petition that we are debating today focuses on the amount available for carers through carer’s allowance, but there are other issues that warrant our concern. A particularly worrying problem that we have already heard about is the recent reporting of overpayments of carer’s allowance and the subsequent repayment penalties. As we have heard, poor systems or poor processes at the Department of Work and Pensions have resulted in 145,000 current cases of overpayments to unpaid carers, with 12,000 of those being for sums greater than £5,000. As has been reported in the press recently, that has resulted in thousands of carers running up huge debts, being given criminal records, and being forced to sell their own homes when chased by the DWP over small mistakes that officials could have spotted years earlier. For example, George Henderson, the carer of his adult son John, who has a learning disability, was overpaid £110 and ended up being prosecuted for benefit fraud by the Department for Work and Pensions, despite the Department admitting that his was an innocent mistake. He was forced to sell his house and threatened monthly with jail. Then he tried to take his own life. Mr Henderson told The Mirror:

“One night I’d had a drink and I put a noose up in the loft…My girlfriend rang the Crisis team and I was under them for four months. They wouldn’t let me live alone. I lost four stone as I couldn’t eat, I look at photos from that time and you can see my ribcage.”

The repercussions of that time continue to affect Mr Henderson, and he is now waiting to undergo therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. Sadly, there are many other carers like Mr Henderson. One carer told Carers UK:

“The whole process had my wife so stressed out that she at several points contemplated suicide. She couldn’t see an end to it and as it turned out we didn’t end up owing the DWP anything.”

Carers have described suffering an avalanche of utter stress due to the Government’s claiming back of these benefits. This is not about mistakes or misunderstandings by carers, as we have heard; this is about administrative failures at the DWP and harsh penalties for people whom the Government should be trying to support. There must be a change to the processing around carer’s allowance to alleviate the acute distress and financial hardship that overpayments can cause; otherwise, we will see many more serious headlines. It is reported that one in three unpaid carers has thought about killing themselves due to the emotional and financial strain they are under. That is disturbing. It is also disturbing that it is not known how many carers have already been driven to suicide, because caring status is not part of the data collected after such a death.

It is unacceptable, in my view, that the Government have let this mismanagement of carer’s allowance processes go on for so long. Both the Work and Pensions Committee and the National Audit Office warned of this situation five years ago, yet the number of overpayments today remains just as high. I am glad that Labour has committed to reviewing the system of carer’s allowance and would look to reform DWP policy on carer’s allowance but now that these issues are really being exposed, carers should not have to wait for a general election to see action. The Government must sort out the mess urgently so that unpaid carers are no longer penalised for the vital care they offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

Yes, indeed. I was supportive of that myself, attending where possible to support that legislation going through. The Government absolutely welcome the cross-party work the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) did piloting that, and congratulations to her.

On the specific subject of the debate, we are spending record amounts to support unpaid carers. Real-terms expenditure for carer’s allowance is forecast to be £4.1 billion in 2024-25 and by 2028-29 the Government are forecast to spend over £4.5 billion a year on carer’s allowance. We spend another £685 million to support carers receiving universal credit through the carer element.

As mentioned today, patterns of care have changed significantly over the past decade. People are providing vital unpaid care to relatives and friends in a whole range of circumstances that work for all concerned, but I also recognise that none of this is easy. Nearly one million people now receive carer’s allowance, and the weekly rate increased this month to £81.90. That means that since 2010 it has increased from £53.90 to £81.90 a week, providing an additional £1,500 a year to carers through the carer’s allowance compared with 2010. Of course, there are additional amounts for carers in universal credit and other ways forward, and it is important that those watching and those who maybe have not had this conversation are aware of those and come forward to get the support they need. That also can be through the household support fund. We know that unexpected outgoings happen, and people should reach out through their local authority and through Barnett consequentials. I know that that has been an important support mechanism for carers.

The crux of the petition we have been debating is that we should turn carer’s allowance into a carer’s wage. It is important to emphasise that the carer’s allowance is not intended to be a replacement for a wage or a payment for services of caring, hence some of the issues rightly raised today. It is therefore not directly comparable to either the national minimum wage or the national living wage. The principal purpose of the carer’s allowance as it stands, and under successive Governments since 1976, is to provide a measure of financial support and recognition for people who are not able to work full time because of their caring responsibilities. I reiterate that I welcome the debate and the opportunity to review and understand these issues. Successive Governments have supported carers through allowances and benefits, as well as wider cross-Government actions, rather than paying people directly for the tasks they undertake in the way that an employer would.

[Barbara Keeley]

I want to raise something that has not been raised in the debate and ask the Minister a question. She refuted the point that the Government do not recognise the contribution of carers, but many carers believe that the Government should have, and are missing, a national carers strategy. Such a strategy was launched by the Labour Government, with the backing of our former Prime Ministers, and was ditched by the coalition Government after 2010. Much of what we have covered is about a range of issues that would be better solved with a cross-party ministerial commitment, going up to prime ministerial level, on a national carers strategy. An excellent campaigner, Katy Styles, who has been mentioned in this debate, runs the We Care Campaign for that very thing. It is a real black hole in the Government’s support for carers that there is no national carers strategy. Will the Minister address that?

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) took us back nearly two decades to 2008, the year that he was Minister of State in the Department holding the welfare reform portfolio. This is not new; this is challenging. The hon. Lady makes an important point, to which I will try to reply in my wider remarks. When we discuss this issue at the Select Committee, I am keen to get to the crux of all the challenges, but that is too wide a subject for this debate.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) talked about benefit delays and the challenge of the long-standing principle that the carer’s allowance can being awarded only once a decision has been made to trigger a disability benefit to the person being cared for. Carer’s allowance can be backdated, however, to the date from which the disability is payable. I believe about 100,000 people are on PIP and the carer’s allowance. I hope that goes some way to answering her questions.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), with her characteristic approach, raised the work being done in Scotland. We will look fully and with interest at the evaluation of the changes that the Scottish Government make. At the DWP, we are supporting those changes, so we will engage on them. That also goes to the earlier point about looking and learning, which is exactly what we should do.

Many hon. Members spoke about young adult carers and the impact of study. We are engaging with the Department for Education and the cross-Government working group is meeting again soon. It is important that carers maintain links with the education system, so that they can receive part-time education and a carer’s allowance. We rightly recognise the aspirations of young carers to not only complete their studies and build a successful career, but be there for their loved one.

That is true not just for young carers: we need to ensure that carers understand that, while caring, they have developed amazing skills that an employer will find invaluable, such as managing finances, the resilience that has been spoken about today, dealing with crisis, organisation and planning, and that level of interpersonal skills. We need to ensure that our young people in particular get the financial support that they need while studying, so they can rightly progress into the career that they want.

On the latest data on overpayments, our most recent statistics are that carer’s allowance overpayments relating to earnings and employment represent about 2.1% of our £3.3 billion of carer’s allowance expenditure, which is approximately £70 million. I welcome the opportunity to discuss that further with the Select Committee later this week.

Household Support Fund

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for securing this debate on such an important issue.

In Salford City Council, the household support fund is run by the excellent Salford Assist service. Last year, nearly 19,000 people accessed emergency funds. As in the example given by my right hon. Friend, the fund also provided vouchers to ensure that children entitled to free school meals had food in the school holidays.

I am deeply concerned that the future of the fund is not secure past the end of March. Salford City Council has had its funding cut by £245 million since 2010. There are literally no funds to fill the gap that ending the household support fund would leave. Eighty-four per cent of councils that responded to a recent Local Government Association survey said that hardship had increased in their area, and in Salford, demand for the fund has increased by 86% in the last year.

Carers are particularly hard hit by the cost of living crisis; according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a third of them live in poverty. Carers Trust highlighted that the household support fund has enabled carer organisations to work with local councils to ensure that carers who are in need of financial help have access to the household support fund.

I will give a couple of examples of how the fund has been used to support my constituents. One constituent had lost everything when she fled a domestic violence situation with her two small children. She was offered social housing but it was unfurnished. The household support fund was essential in helping to provide basic furnishings for her new home.

Another constituent contacted me when a change of job meant she was put on an emergency tax rate. She was living in private rented accommodation with her partner and two children, who both have long-term health conditions. The children’s health issues meant that her partner had to stop work to look after them, and the family was finding it more and more difficult to meet the cost of their rent. She said:

“I have lived in Salford all my life, paid my contributions, provided for my children, maintained a home, but right now with all factors in play, this is becoming more and more unachievable as time passes.”

With the energy crisis and the cost of living crisis, I am contacted by so many people who are in hardship due to rent increases or sudden changes to their salary or benefits. That is where the support of the household support fund is vital. This is not the time to remove that support. I and my hon. Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who is here, and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) have raised the matter with the Secretary of State and asked him to meet us and a cross-party group of elected councillors to raise our serious concerns about the potential impact of losing the household support fund in Salford. I hope the meeting can be arranged soon and I hope we get a commitment from the Government to continue this vital fund.

Cost of Living: Financial Support for Disabled People

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on leading this important debate. We know that the serious implications of rising prices for fuel, transport and food have fallen much harder on some people. People with disabilities face a higher risk of poverty. The poverty rate for individuals who live in families where someone is disabled is 28%—nine percentage points more than those who live in families where no one is disabled. They are also less likely to be able to make savings on their bills for reasons related to their disability. We have heard a great deal about how the size of bills impacts many people.

I will talk about one of the petitioners: Katy Styles, who is here today. She is an unpaid carer for her husband who has motor neurone disease, and she is a campaigner for improved support for carers. She put it like this:

“It’s not a question of putting on an extra jumper for us. When someone has a muscle wasting disease their ability to stay warm is compromised, so homes need to be heated for longer and at higher temperatures. Not heating your home can lead to chest infections and in turn this can lead to a stay in hospital”.

We are focusing an awful lot on households with someone with a disability, but the extra costs for heating are borne by not only the person with a disability but their unpaid carers. Well over a quarter of all unpaid carers are living in poverty, and research from Carers UK found that more than three quarters of carers said that the rising cost of living is one of the main challenges that they would face in 2023, which is hardly surprising.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning my fantastic constituent Katy Styles. Does my hon. Friend agree that campaigns such as We Care and people such as Katy make a real difference to us because they talk about the impact on real lives, and how the decisions that we make here affect them on a daily basis? It is not just statistics that we receive from charities and others: we know how each decision that we make here impacts on people’s real lives.

[Barbara Keeley]

I very much agree. It is good that Katy Styles is here today, because I have learned a lot from her about the role of carers. It is something that I care deeply about. Like her, I would like to see improved support for carers.

Returning to the point about maintaining higher temperatures in the home, people with disabilities, as we have heard, are also being hit with the increased costs of vital high-energy equipment, additional laundry and bathing needs, and transport for visits to medical appointments, which can be very costly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said, the charity Scope has found that, on average, households with at least one disabled adult or child need an additional £975 a month to have the same standard of living as households without somebody with a disability. In fact, those extra costs—she gave this figure too—rise to £1,122 a month after accounting for inflation. In this debate, we are throwing around the amounts of £150 and £650, but we should think about those figures, because £150 is nowhere near the increased costs.

The petition asked for disabled people and unpaid carers to be included in the one-off £650 cost of living support payment. We should reflect on the fact that unpaid carers are more likely to live in poverty than those without caring responsibilities: 29% compared with 20%. The Government responded to both petitions for today’s debate stating that 6 million people in receipt of a qualifying disability benefit would receive a £150 payment last September, but only those in receipt of a qualifying benefit would receive the £650 payment. I understand that that excluded 568,000 personal independence payment and disability living allowance claimants and 523,000 carer’s allowance claimants. Carers such as Katy Styles and the We Care Campaign argue that although the one-off £150 payment was welcome—as discussed earlier, any extra amount is welcome—given the additional energy costs that disabled people and their families are bearing, it was completely inadequate in the context of the ongoing cost of living crisis. We have all seen our bills: £150 hardly goes anywhere. The We Care Campaign recommends that the Government introduce a social tariff for energy that discounts energy bills for those most in need, automatically enrols eligible households and is mandatory for all suppliers, as advocated by the charities Age UK and Scope.

I am afraid I will not be able to get into all the ins and outs of the argument we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). To a certain extent, I disagree with him: it does not matter how many hours Ofgem spends on this issue. Ofgem should be spending time on it, because it is vital that we have a solution.

I want to talk a little about the work by Age UK. Research by Age UK found that cost of living pressures this winter led to more than half of older people cutting back on heat and power, and more than a quarter feeling too cold at home most or all of the time. Around 800,000 older people had left their home to seek warmth in a public space, such as a shopping centre or library. I heard from older constituents who were using their free bus passes to ride around in buses during the day, just to keep warm. That is a scandal. It is also not an option for some people, because people with disabilities and their carers will not be hopping on and off different buses just to try to keep and warm.

I turn to eligibility for the warm home discount, which is important. The We Care Campaign recommends that the Government extend eligibility for the warm home discount to include people with disabilities and unpaid carers. The warm home discount was changed by the Government this winter, but it was not extended to include people with disabilities and unpaid carers; in fact, quite the opposite. Money-saving expert Martin Lewis estimated that 290,000 existing claimants who have disabilities and who claim only personal independence payment, attendance allowance or disability living allowance, which are not means-tested, will no longer get the warm home discount.

As a constituency MP, my experience of the changes made by the Government is of being contacted by constituents who formerly received the warm home discount but found that they were no longer eligible. In most cases, the reason given by the Government was that the discount is now targeted on properties that have a high energy cost score based on their characteristics. In my experience, however, some newer properties can be cold and difficult to heat, so we cannot just base it on the age of a property. I understand that the procedure involved using Valuation Agency-set characteristics and then pushing them through an algorithm, but Martin Lewis has shown that that is mistaken.

I say to the Minister that I know from my experience that some people on very low incomes have been denied the warm home discount this winter. I feel that the changes are wrong, and I urge the Government to look at this issue again. It is time that there was extra support for people with a disability and their unpaid carers to help them cope with the unprecedented financial pressures due to the energy bill crisis and the cost of living crisis, and I hope the Government will think again after this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

The Secretary of State and I, and other Ministers in the Department, have been very willing to try to provide more information to the House. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is not right: we have come forward, for example, around the structural reforms in the White Paper. The decision that I have made within the Department, because I think that it is important for Parliament to have this information, is to provide a significant statistical release around it so that colleagues on both sides can look at the reforms and reach informed decisions when it comes to votes on the specifics of the policy. There are good reasons for the policies that we intend to pursue, and that statistical release will allow colleagues to form their judgments. I will happily take away her specific request around publication.

We provide significant statistical releases as a Department, as well as reports that are put into the public domain at their conclusion. We are in the early stages of that work, but I am happy to look at it through that lens. We provide information to support parliamentary debate and to support those we work with to get packages of support right, and it is not unhelpful, wherever possible, to provide that information in a way that is accessible beyond the Department.

The disability unit is also seeking to understand and evidence the full impact of the current cost of living on disabled people across a range of sectors. That work is ongoing. There is good dialogue and engagement with disabled people and their representative groups about it, so that we can look at the situation in its totality, understand the interventions that we have made to date and understand the needs that exist. That is relevant to some of what I will go on to say about the other points that were raised in the debate.

Let me turn to energy costs specifically. It was helpful that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), was here, albeit for a short time. She heard some of the debate, and I will happily relay to her the contributions that were made, because of course the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero leads on energy policy. Many hon. Members understandably referenced energy costs, particularly in relation to the cost of equipment. The Government supported families across the UK last winter through the energy price guarantee, which places a limit on the price that households pay per unit of gas or electricity. As announced at the spring Budget, households continue to be supported throughout the spring with the extension of EPG at £2,500 per year for the average household until June 2023. That will give the average British family an average saving of £160 per household throughout this period. Support is also provided through cold weather payments and the warm home discount.

I want to touch, as I did last week, on the priority services register, which is run by energy suppliers. It offers additional free services to people who are of pensionable age, are registered disabled, have a hearing or visual impairment, or have long-term ill health. The register helps to ensure that people in vulnerable situations can access extra help when needed, such as when there is a power cut.

[Barbara Keeley]

I wonder whether the Minister will say more about the warm home discount, which many of us raised on behalf of people who found that they could not get it, including people who had the discount before: I felt that that was very harsh this winter. It is unacceptable that people were excluded from it because of assumed characteristics of their bills. We had quite a long exposé of various ideas about how to calculate it, but I hope that the Minister will admit that the scheme that he adopted is pretty crude. I know that it has left people on very low incomes in cold homes, and it should be looked at again.

[Tom Pursglove]

Again, I am happy to deal directly with that point, but I want to touch on the longer-term thinking around energy costs, which is led by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I entirely accept that, and I do not think that I have suggested otherwise, but of course where we can help with people’s energy costs in the whole, we should do that. It is right that as a Government we do our bit to try to help, through those schemes, to provide that insulation support, which inevitably assists with some of those challenging costs that we are dealing with through the wider support that I have described.

We plan to lay legislation by the summer to take forward those measures that I have just set out. Energy efficiency measures in the fabric of our buildings, such as loft and cavity wall insulation, will lead to less demand on the electricity and gas grids, which in turn could help us to mitigate the impact of high and volatile international gas prices. This could also reduce energy bills for consumers, as well as helping vulnerable households out of fuel poverty.

Finally, I wanted to say something about the White Paper reforms that the Government proposed six weeks or so ago. It is absolutely right that we unlock the potential of those who wish to work and to do that with the right support. I mention this issue because there have been a few comments about it and I was able to say that we will be providing that statistical release, which I think will give colour to those reforms and allow people to make judgments about them and understand the rationale behind the direction of our proposals.

However, I regularly hear from disabled people who would like the opportunity to work, but that structural barrier within the system—that worry, or jeopardy, about trying work and it not working out, and then having to go through reapplication and reassessment processes—just cannot be right. Undoubtedly, though, that is getting in the way of so many people unlocking their potential and taking on work, if that is something they want to do.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) touched on opportunities for part-time work. Those are exactly the sort of opportunities that we want to unlock for people. Getting rid of the jeopardy that people feel is in the system and, undoubtedly, that work opportunity will help with households’ resilience when it comes to the costs that they experience more generally.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically what sort of support we are putting in place around that. For example, there was the announcement that the Chancellor made around universal support. The pioneers for that are the individual placement and support in primary care. We know that works; it has a 68% success rate with the supported employment model of identifying an employment opportunity that is right for someone, supporting them into that role and then helping them to retain it.

Schemes such as Access to Work Plus are also exciting and provide great opportunities. We are currently evaluating some of our initial testing of that scheme, but it is about crafting a job role and working with an employer that is keen to take on a disabled person, ensuring they are able to unlock that opportunity in a way that is right for that individual. It is about working with them on a tailored, personalised basis, which is exactly the basis that I am determined we will progress the White Paper reforms on. The overarching sentiment, and the fundamental safety net, is that we would never ask anyone to do something that is inappropriate for them.

Alongside those measures, we also want a better journey through the benefits system for people who need support. I am not complacent about that. There have been contributions today that touched on PIP journey times, and I can confirm that they are down to 14 weeks. That is where we wanted to get to. Previously, people were experiencing unacceptable waits. I am also asking officials to stretch and see what more we can do to take that further and get certainty for people as early in that journey as possible.

Some of the measures we talked about in the White Paper speak to the wider effort we want to make to improve experiences of the benefits system. With the severe disability group, for example, I hope to be able to say more about the work we will do to kick that on and test that model. We think the model is right, because it reduces the assessment burden on people, particularly where their conditions are unlikely to improve. I would argue that scrapping the work capability assessment provides a good opportunity. We have many debates in this House on that over the years. I am also thinking back to debates before my time here—that was a very controversial issue. Scrapping that assessment is the right thing to do, and it allows us an opportunity to focus on quality decision making over and above the current picture.

We want to better gauge fluctuating conditions in the benefits systems, and we want to test that to see what we could do to provide better-quality support and help for people navigating the benefit system with fluctuating conditions. That is as well as the feedback that came through loud and clear in the responses to the Green Paper: they said that they wanted to see the Department matching expert assessors with their particular conditions, because they think that greater understanding will lead to better outcomes. I am looking forward to the opportunity to debate those issues in the weeks and months ahead.

[Barbara Keeley]

It seemed like the Minister was winding towards his last few sentences, so I did not want us to end the debate without once again thanking carers and the We Care Campaign, who have done such a wonderful job. The Minister has not mentioned carers much, which is disappointing given that carers were mentioned such a lot previously. The Minister talked about people with disabilities wanting to get back into work, which is admirable, but we ought to be constantly thankful for the hundreds of thousands of people who have given up work so that they can care. We owe them a massive debt.

I think I am right in saying that his Government have not done anything like as much work as previous Governments have for carers. They do not have a national carers strategy any more, which we did under previous Governments. It is a pity that, it having been raised so many times in this debate, he has not mentioned carers more.

[Tom Pursglove]

I have not finished my remarks yet. It is important to thank carers, who do a remarkable job and provide incredible support, often to loved ones, family members, and friends. I recognise that is often very challenging, which is why we provide support through the carer’s allowance. The hon. Lady was not in last week’s debate, but I committed to look at carer’s allowances and the thresholds. It is an issue that is being raised fairly regularly in the context of these debates, and I repeat that commitment today. I want to see if the balance relating to carer’s allowance is right, and whether there is more that we can do.

Labour Market Activity

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Commons Chamber

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

More and more people are being pushed out of work owing to ill health: 2.5 million working-age people are now economically inactive owing to long-term sickness. Given the current stalling living standards and the cost of living crisis, it is unsurprising that many of those people want a job, but the current system is preventing them from re-entering the labour market by not providing the right support, and that is happening on multiple fronts.

The aim of the Restart scheme was to help people who were long-term unemployed as a result of the covid pandemic to get back into work, but a recent evaluation by the National Audit Office found that the programme would support fewer than half the anticipated number of people but would cost 35% more per person. Meanwhile, the work capability assessment regime has disincentivised some people with disabilities from trying to get back into employment because of the risk of losing their benefits when a reassessment of personal independence payment is triggered. I understand that there has been a revision of operational instructions to mitigate that, but the problem has not been eliminated for many people in receipt of the benefit.

As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), there are also problems with the functionality of the work capability assessment process. Not only are many cases overturned on appeal, but the process itself can be drawn out and difficult. One of my constituents has been waiting for her assessment since April last year, which means that she has been receiving a lower rate of universal credit until it is completed. She has had her appointments cancelled three times, apparently because of lost paperwork. That is unacceptable.

Another constituent told me about her experience of being assessed through the work capability assessment regime for her universal credit. She is a registered nurse, who is currently unable to work owing to health problems. She told me this about one call that took place as part of that assessment process:

“I came off the call in tears and my daughter was very concerned about my state of mind after this call. I was made to feel that I was not worthy of these benefits and made to feel I was claiming something that I shouldn’t be getting. The way I was treated makes me very concerned for other people not strong enough mentally to deal with this abuse of power.”

A third constituent recently told me:

“I feel like I am being made to beg for help.”

It is critical that people are not penalised for trying to obtain paid work. Someone claiming personal independence payments who get a job that does not work out within a year should be guaranteed the ability to return to the exact benefits they were on before, with no fresh benefit assessments required, and, crucially, there must be improved targeted support for people with long-term mental and physical health problems. The current system is trapping people out of the workplace when hundreds of thousands of people are in need of a stable income, so I hope the Secretary of State will agree to reform the disability benefit assessment, as Labour is proposing to do. If not, can he explain how he can listen to the experience of my constituents and defend the current system?

Unpaid carers are another group who have become locked out of the labour market. Although the majority of carers are of working age, many carers have had to reduce their hours at work or quit their jobs entirely because of their caring responsibilities. Carers UK has estimated that nearly 2 million people in paid employment become unpaid carers every year, but a survey by Carers UK found that two thirds of unpaid carers had to give up opportunities at work because of their caring. Women were much more likely to be affected, as were people giving more hours of unpaid care. In the same survey, a quarter of unpaid carers said that they needed better support to return to, or maintain, paid work.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I know the work that the hon. Lady has done in relation to unpaid carers and the support she has given to my private Member’s Bill on carers’ leave. Does she agree that one of the ways of encouraging people back into work is changing the carer’s allowance? It creates a cliff edge that disincentivises unpaid carers from entering employment. Does she agree that it needs to be changed?

[Barbara Keeley]

That is something that Carers UK has campaigned on repeatedly. It certainly does need looking at.

The Government have failed time and again to provide the necessary support for carers. I think I am right in saying that the Secretary of State, when he was talking about his review, did not mention carers. Again, that is disappointing. The carers action plan for 2018 to 2020 was shamefully void of funding provision and ambition for support for carers, and it pales in comparison to the national strategy for carers that Labour published in 2008. The last Labour Government pledged £255 million for new commitments to support carers. That included £150 million to increase significantly the amount of money provided by central Government for breaks from caring. Such breaks can be a lifeline for carers and allow them to continue in employment. That funding for breaks appears to have disappeared.

Labour also committed funding to enable carers to combine paid employment with their caring role and to re-enter the labour market after their caring role had finished, through flexible working opportunities and increased training provision. There was a commitment to working with Jobcentre Plus to deliver improved information and establish a training programme for carers. In contrast, the Government’s carers action plan merely promised to consider dedicated employment rights for carers, and said that the Government would work to increase opportunities for carers returning to the private sector. Those measures are woefully inadequate and demonstrate a failure to support this country’s 10 million carers.

Unpaid carers are repeatedly forgotten by this Government, despite the enormous social and economic contributions they make, so will the Minister—and indeed the Secretary of State, when he is back at his place—work with colleagues across Government to ensure that the benefit system works for, rather than against, people making claims? Will he commit to improving the current regime, which sees too many unpaid carers and too many people in receipt of disability benefits being locked out of employment?