Women and Girls: Economic Well-being, Welfare, Safety and Opportunities
Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, the word “indefatigable” has been used about my noble friend Lady Gale. I say amen to that and thank her for today. Your Lordships will not be surprised that I will concentrate on the role of women and girls as carers in the years since 2010. I include girls because, as your Lordships know, there are many underage carers. What we have to say about caring is that there is more of it and more women and girls are involved. Since 2010, the number of women providing unpaid care has continued to increase and the average woman now has a 50:50 chance of providing unpaid care to a family member or friend by the age of 49, 11 years earlier than for any man and significantly ahead of the time they reach retirement age. This of course impacts on women’s ability to work in full-time employment. The lack of investment in social care, which I have brought to your Lordships’ attention many times, has served to exacerbate these challenges. The lack of an adequate social care workforce has placed additional pressure on carers’ lives. We must have a social care system fit for the future if we want all women to be able to participate fully in society and the economy. Is it not interesting that we have not heard one word about social care from the candidates for Prime Minister—not a single word about what they will do about social care, except that some have pledged to cut the levy that was going to fund it?
Overall, women are much more likely to take on caring roles than men. More than half of carers are women. Carers UK has calculated that the economic value of the unpaid care provided by women in the UK is a massive £77 billion a year. They are more likely to be around the clock carers, more likely to be sandwich carers—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to caring for young children and elderly parents—and more likely to have given up work or reduced their working hours to care. Is it not a pity that the promise made in the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto to bring in five days’ unpaid leave for those with caring responsibilities, a modest enough proposal when all is said and done, has not been carried out because of the lack of an employment Bill? There is a Private Member’s Bill in the other place that I hope may serve to rectify this omission.
If you do not continue full-time work, what do you do? You build up problems with your pension and build up poverty for the future, and that is without thinking about the cost of living problems. We hear that carers are having extreme difficulty in managing choices about whether they eat or heat their homes. Many cannot afford to do both. Just over half of all carers responding to a recent survey are currently unable to manage their monthly expenses. This is not sustainable without urgent intervention because it will lead to carers breaking down and being unable to continue caring for family and friends—instead, passing the cost of doing so to local authorities and the state.
I do not want just to whinge. Caring is necessary for and central to human relationships and a desirable feature of family and community life. It happens to all people and in all walks of life, although disproportionately to women. Most carers do not resent the care they give. They see it as their duty and family responsibility, but the quid pro quo of taking on the things they do, willingly and with love, is that carers suffer disadvantages and problems with their own health, including their mental health, and economic and financial insecurity. I have pointed out their difficulties with paid work. Their rights as citizens and voters also suffer if they are not able to pursue their own interests or have any free time. We must recognise and support all carers, but especially women carers. We should remember that, because the contribution they make to the economy far outstrips anything else, even the resources of the National Health Service, it makes very sound economic sense—as well as moral good sense—to support carers.
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. Many patients past, present and future have reason to be extremely grateful for her work.
I was listening with half an ear to the opening debate on the gracious Speech in the other place, when I thought I heard the Prime Minister say that the Government were giving confidence to people so that they knew they would be looked after in old age by fixing social care. I did a bit of a double take and thought, “I can’t possibly have heard that right—he can’t have said that”. So the next day, I got the Hansard of the debate and, sure enough, there it was in black and white: the Government are “fixing social care”. Well, you could have fooled me.
Most people in employment, including of course many of those actually providing social care, will have noticed the effects of the health and social care levy on their pay last month—their contribution to the £12 billion that is set to improve health and social care. Most of those of us who worked in the social care field for years were always pretty cynical that any of the £12 billion would reach the front line, as it was always going to be used first to clear NHS waiting lists. Social care is, after all, used to being the tail-end Charlie in these matters.
Given that waiting lists now stand at 6.5 million, the highest figure since records began, and seem to be growing exponentially—perhaps reaching 14 million by 2024—I do not hold out much hope of any of the money reaching social care. Yet why are people waiting so long for a knee replacement? Why are they waiting more than 12 hours for admission via A&E? Why are paramedics stuck in queues for a whole day, as we have heard, instead of answering emergency calls? The answer is so obvious that it beggars belief it does not drive the policy.
The answer is that patients are not being discharged at the other end of the process. And why not? Because there is inadequate social care to receive the discharged patients and care for them so that they are not readmitted to hospital, thus starting the whole sorry process all over again. Is it any wonder that the usual suspects who speak in your Lordships’ House on social care are weary, disillusioned and angry?
When it comes to social care, I always remind your Lordships that the main providers of this care are not public services but the millions of unpaid carers who do most of the heavy lifting. With regard to carers the Queen’s Speech was a bitter disappointment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reminded us. In 2019, the Conservative Party manifesto committed to introducing a right to one week’s unpaid leave—I repeat: one week, unpaid—to help with caring responsibility. We expected an employment Bill to contain this provision but it was notable by its absence. That the promised employment Bill has been excluded from the Government’s commitments for the next year is a severe blow to unpaid carers and a huge missed opportunity.
The Government had been very keen to stress the introduction of a right to carer’s leave, as support for unpaid carers, as an important part of their delivery of social care reform, hospital discharge and staying in work. It is essential, given the pressures on families as the cost of living crisis deepens. Are the Government now back-tracking on their manifesto promises to carers? This is such a missed opportunity to value carers and to ensure they have the support to continue to juggle work and care.
With severe social care shortages and pressures on the NHS, families simply cannot do it all. Many are at breaking point. This is precisely the time when the Government should be investing in carers and their families, as well as employers, by bringing in the right to one week’s unpaid carers leave, and a right from day one to request flexible working. It is a modest enough request, surely. Five days unpaid leave might just stop you having to use all your holiday leave to take the person you care for to their endless hospital appointments and would be a small step towards helping employed carers stay in employment as long as possible. Why do we want them to do that? To help them stay solvent while they are caring, and to stop them building up poverty for the future by losing access to pensions from employment.
As I have been so disappointed in the gracious Speech, I must pin my hopes on a Private Member’s Bill. Three times over the last few years we have had success for carers through this route, and if any Member of the other place wishes to take up the issue—I hope at least some of them are listening—I earnestly hope that the Government will commit to support it.
Environment Bill
Baroness Pitkeathley ExcerptsMonday 12th July 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-VIII(Rev) Revised eighth marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jul 2021)
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 293A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, whom I congratulate on bringing this matter forward. I have added my name to the amendment. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee at the Home Office. I am a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Gunmakers, a former chairman and former president of the British Shooting Sports Council, a former president of the Gun Trade Association and a member of BASC and the GWCT. I hope your Lordships will deduce that I know a little about shooting and lead shot.
As we have heard, lead is acknowledged as a poison. It is banned in paints, petrol, fishing weights, water and a raft of other products. Recently, nine major quarry shooting associations—as I said, I am a member of BASC—came together in a statement, saying that their intention is for the shooting sports to cease the use of lead shot, or toxic shot, within five years. Waitrose, the supermarket chain, has told me that it will sell only game shot with non-toxic shot from next year. The National Game Dealers Association, which sells the vast majority of game-bird meat and game meat in general intends to do the same by July 2022. The vast majority of my game-shooting friends and acquaintances, and the majority of those to whom I speak in the game-shooting world, are already planning to move to non-toxic shot in the coming season, including myself.
The technology of steel shot, biodegradable wads and recyclable cartridge cases is being rapidly moved forward by cartridge manufacturers such as Eley Hawk. Indeed, I am personally actively making the switch as quickly as I can. The move away from lead shot is gaining momentum all the way through America, Europe and other countries.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, the Lead Ammunition Group recently conducted a major inquiry into lead in shooting. I have to say that it was not done just by the bird-watching enthusiasts, as she said; it was actually done by the shooting world as well. It was led by a gentleman called John Swift, who happened to be the chairman of BASC at the time, so I think that it ought to have a little credit for that.
We have been around this lead racetrack, so to speak, ad infinitum. I repeat that lead is a poison—we all know that. It should not be permitted to enter the food chain, full stop. I agree with noble Lord, Lord Krebs, entirely: Her Majesty’s Government need to place all in the game-shooting industry in a position where they know with what timescale they must comply. This would give assurance to them and mean that they can make the changes necessary. Many of them will have to retool equipment—as I say, lead shot is on its way out—and manufacturers such as Eley Hawk are having to change their ways, and are doing so very successfully.
However, this does not happen overnight. Many guns—London Best guns, for instance—that were built a long time ago to shoot lead shot cannot shoot steel shot, so that has to be looked into as well. This is quite a complicated subject—not an easy “We’ll do it today” job. If the Government were to make up their mind and push the shooting industry into this a little harder, with a date that we know we comply with, that would be a very good thing, and I would strongly support it.
The market for game and game meat is of course substantial. The game dealers and the supermarkets are changing their ways. Waitrose tells me that, by the time it goes toxic-shot-free next year, it may well be able to sell more than a million more game birds— that is just one supermarket chain. That is good for the shooting industry. We need to be able to find decent new markets where we can sell this excellent low-calorie meat.
I am very aware that this amendment probably requires further work, so I ask my noble friend the Minister—we had a brief conversation outside the Chamber before this debate started—if he would very kindly meet with the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and me as soon as possible to discuss this further before Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, the discussion on this grouping has been quite lengthy. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, in thanking my noble friend Lord Chidgey for his excellent championing of chalk streams in this and earlier groupings. I very much hope that the Government will respond positively to the suggestion of this new designation for chalk streams. I will not speak for long because most points have already been covered.
I added my name to Amendment 235 of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on species conservation strategies, and I very much support his comments. We need to ensure that they support nature recovery and not faster development. It is right that, as the comments that have been made by noble Lords around the Committee showed, there is unanimous support for this amendment. That is indicative of the level of concern that we have about what the Government might be proposing in terms of future planning reforms coming down the track. If we can get this clear in the Environment Bill, that could give us some level of assurance. For those reasons, we on this Bench also support the 10 amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who is looking to make these species conservation strategies work better. They are a good tool, but they need to work better, so we support all those amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I heard what my noble friend the Minister said regarding the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. Does he not agree that even if we banned the use of lead ammunition in killing wild birds and animals, although it would not address target and clay pigeon shooting, surely that would set the whole thing off? Would it not be a great first move to make?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to Amendment 251A. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 251A
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, the 15 national parks in the UK are indeed a natural treasure and one of the glories of our country, some of them have a worldwide reputation. To confine myself to the three in Wales, I know they may be a devolved matter, but the facts about them still indicate the huge significance of national parks generally. The Brecon Beacons, the Pembrokeshire coast and Snowdonia cover 20% of the land surface of Wales. They have a resident population of 80,000 people and account for over £0.5 billion of Wales’ gross added value—some 1.2% of the Welsh economy. They are internationally important examples of how working landscapes can be protected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has set out one of the two purposes of national parks as set out in Section 5(1) of the 1949 national parks Act. These two purposes clearly chime in beautifully with the Environment Bill now before us, and it is therefore very important that they should have a specific clause within the Bill. Although there are legal protections for them under the 1949 Act, we live at a time when there is a desperate need, for example, for more affordable housing. The Government have made this a priority, and some of the checks and balances that used to be in place, in the form of the ability to prevent a particular scheme going forward, are being eroded. We saw one public reaction to this recently in the Chesham and Amersham by-election.
The amendment before us would ensure that any local authority seeking planning permission in a national park would have to take fully into account the legal purpose of the park. The Minister may argue that there are enough protections already in the 1949 Act but, given that the national parks are such a crucial feature of our environment and that the pressure for new housing is now so intense, it is appropriate that there is a special clause in the Bill which keeps these protections firmly in the mind of all those drawing up applications in those areas. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has mentioned some of the pressures—for example, from motorways—but possible housing developments may perhaps be on the edge of a national park. No doubt it would be unthinkable for a local authority to try to put up a new housing estate in the middle of a national park, but there could be building, industrial or waste developments on the edge of a national park, which would have serious implications for its protected environment.
At a time of increasing pressure, the proposed new clause before us comes under the heading of “You can’t be too careful”, and I support it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is not speaking on this group, so I call the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a property owner with tourism interests within the Exmoor National Park, going back very many years, and I have professionally had an involvement with several other UK national parks.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for giving me advance warning when she tabled this amendment and for giving us an opportunity to have this debate. At an earlier point in our Committee, I had, through my own fault, a rather awkwardly grouped pair of amendments—Amendments 290 and 291—on an enlargement of national park purposes, which were not actually moved in that group. Although they have got a bit lost in the system, I am glad that I have some opportunity to make a few of the points here. In any event, I would rather raise them in the context of Amendment 251A.
I have enormous sympathy with this amendment. For many people, the immediate reaction might be to ask why any adjacent authority would not have regard to national park purposes. But, recalling my own experiences, I can appreciate that this might not be so. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to the A27 at Arundel. Of course, as a Sussex resident, I am quite familiar with the long-running saga of how to deal with the discontinuity on parts of the A27. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned, this is a two-way affair. National park authorities do not, after all, have full jurisdiction over all areas of local government authority and other aspects. It follows that they must at the very least, for their part, be able to co-operate with those bodies that exercise jurisdiction in the areas they do not control, including highways, police, infrastructure, building control, fire and rescue, services and communications, and those sorts of things.
In the past, I have attended meetings on site within national parks to discuss, in one case, the improvement of an admittedly dangerous farm track exiting on to an unrestricted A-class road. The meeting had been triggered by an incident at that location which could easily have been fatal for a motorcycle rider. But, as it turned out, this matter seemed to be of little concern in national park policy terms. The improvement required would have involved the removal of some length of hedgerow to improve sight lines. Of course, that could have been replicated on the back of the visibility splays, as opposed to immediately adjacent to the current road, but that was not acceptable to the national park authority, despite the obvious problems for farm movements and the safety of highway users. As far as I know, the dangerous exit remains some 20 years later. But I find it very difficult to understand that conservation issues should be unable to take account of public safety or the orderly exercise of farming activities. In another instance, a national park authority apparently permitted substantial works for the installation of a bulk LPG tank for commercial purposes but did not realise that, without an adequate lay-by in addition, the necessary tanker delivering fuel would totally block a narrow unclassified road serving a lot of properties and would do so for periods of up to half an hour at a time.
The issue of breadth of policy and analysis is not helped when narrow thinking occurs, and local government in all its forms, including national park authorities, is not proof against this. I could quote many other examples of the sort of thing I have already mentioned. I think that the potential flashpoints—if I can call them that—are likely to expand, as our most recent cohort of national parks have incorporated more urban areas within their boundaries.
Environment Bill
Baroness Pitkeathley ExcerptsMonday 5th July 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-VI(Rev) Sixth marshalled list for Committee - (5 Jul 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Marlesford.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to be allowed to intervene—briefly, I was withdrawn from speaking in this group—and I would like to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has said about the concerns of small breweries. I was to some extent heartened by the Minister’s response that there is provision for making special arrangements in the regulations, but I would just like to ask him whether he recalls, five or 10 years ago, the rather serious activities of the major brewers in kicking out and treating badly many small pub landlords, which ended up with a lot of fuss. In the end, a Pubs Code Adjudicator was appointed to try to protect the independent landlords and, to some extent, the beers that they supplied. We have to remember that the big brewers are not charities. It is really important for the growth of the industry and the variety that the new brewers provide that there is a real, solid protection for the small brewers when it comes to the deposit return schemes. I hope that the Minister can confirm that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 148A. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 61: Transfrontier shipments of waste
Amendment 148A
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 149. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 149
Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Timber and Timber Products and FLEGT (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this regulation applies to timber harvested in the EU and third countries. It imposes obligations on those who place timber or timber products on the EU internal market for the first time—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The House is having some difficulty hearing the noble Lord. Can you be a little closer to your microphone?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe there is a problem connecting to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. I suggest we move on and maybe return to him if we can reconnect.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I will call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this revised SI. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her contribution and very helpful questions. Obviously, we are keen to have in place a robust and comprehensive licensing scheme for the import of timber. As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, we are all too well aware of the devastation that can be caused by illegal logging on biodiversity and global attempts to mitigate the impact of the climate change emergency. It is good that the EU has taken a stand on this and it is important that we replicate the provision when we leave the EU.
The Explanatory Memorandum makes clear that the EU has entered into a number of voluntary partnership agreements with certain countries to implement a licensing scheme. Does the Minister believe that this licensing scheme is sufficiently widespread to cover all potential timber-exporting countries we might deal with in the future, or is it the UK’s ambition to expand the reach of these licensing agreements so that other countries become partners with us? If the EU makes new or improved licensing agreements after we leave the EU, is it the UK’s intention to mirror those new agreements in UK law as well?
The Explanatory Memorandum also makes clear that it is necessary to have slightly different provisions for Great Britain and Northern Ireland to respect the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. It says that any voluntary partnership agreement entered into with a third country by the Government will automatically be extended to Northern Ireland, even though Northern Ireland will technically be subject to the EU regulations. So, following on from my earlier question, if the UK entered into a new agreement with a country that does not have an equivalent agreement with the EU, could the Minister clarify what impact this would have on Northern Ireland and the flow of cross-border trade on the island of Ireland?
Finally, I return to the vexed question of errors—and I am sorry to return to this issue. It is interesting that I call them “errors” and the Minister calls them “deficiencies”—we could argue on the head of a pin about the difference. Either way, when we debated the INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations on 9 September—which also was correcting a number of errors—I asked the Minister what lessons the department had learned from these recurrent mistakes and what processes had been put in place to overcome them. At the time, the Minister chose not to respond to those questions, so I am giving him the opportunity to address them today. Could he perhaps also write to me with the total number of Defra EU exit SIs that have already come into effect only for errors to be identified and revisions needing to be made? I raise the issue now because, as the Minister will know, we have a heavy couple of months ahead, with hundreds of pages of SIs still to be considered. The last thing that we want to be doing is correcting previous mistakes on top of that. Perhaps the Minister could therefore tell us what improved checks have been put in place to avoid that. I look forward to his response.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I will try calling the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, one more time to see whether we can connect with him. Lord Bhatia? No, we are still having trouble with the connection. I call the Minister.
Older People: Their Place and Contribution in Society
Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, your Lordships’ House has a wonderful record in longevity, as we have heard several times in the debate, but if the temperature in the Chamber drops any lower, I think it will see quite a few more of us off. It is an honour and privilege to speak in this debate and I congratulate the most reverend Primate on his magnificent contribution, on securing the debate, and on the title he has chosen for it—the “contribution” made by older people. Too often when we discuss the place of older people in society, we focus on the problems. We talk about the demographic time bomb, the drain on the resources of the NHS, social care problems and so on. I do it myself all the time when I speak about the problems faced by those delivering social care both now and in the future. But what it is easy to forget is that older people themselves are often the ones providing care, and it is on that caring contribution that I want to focus. We should recognise the contribution made by older people as providers of social care and childcare for grandchildren.
The latest census figures were published on Wednesday and show that the number of carers over the age of 65 is increasing even more rapidly than the general carer population. We are still awaiting the analysis but it certainly looks as though while the total number of carers has increased by 10% in the past 10 years, the number of carers aged over 65 may have increased by as much as 15%. The reasons for this are not difficult to see. The bulk of care in our society has always been provided within families, with twice as many unpaid carers, nearly 6.4 million, as there are paid staff in the health and social care systems combined. The care they provide is valued at a staggering £119 billion every year, which is easily the cost of another health service. If anyone says that families do not care any more—and I am sorry to say that I have heard that several times today—I am afraid that I want to scream. Everyone here in this debate will know at least one, and probably several, older spouses who are caring for a partner with Parkinson’s, some form of mental illness, dementia, arthritis or diabetes. The list is endless. Most of them do not want to stop doing it; they do it because of the love they have for their partner or out of a strong sense of duty, or for the simple reason, as many a carer has said to me, that, “It is what you do”.
Caring for relatives can be a positive experience and many report that it is so, but of course taking on the responsibility of caring, however willingly you do it, has its consequences. It can have very negative consequences for your own health, for example. More than 60% of carers report that their health has suffered as a direct result of caring—either their emotional or physical health, but often both. The vow that people take in the marriage service,
“in sickness and in health”,
is very real in these situations. Age UK research shows that of 2 million older people with care-related needs, nearly 800,000 receive no support of any kind from public or private sector agencies. Many live alone and will suffer the loneliness that many noble Lords have drawn attention to today. However, many others are cared for by a spouse who is becoming increasingly frail themselves because of the stress of caring, and increasingly unable to get any kind of support because of cuts in local services or the charges that councils are now imposing.
As noble Lords will know, councils are increasingly unable even to consider meeting care needs that are assessed as being non-severe or moderate. Research by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services shows that 83% of councils have eligibility criteria set at substantial. If your needs are not seen as substantial, you do not get any help. As one carer aged 87, caring for his wife of 85, who is severely afflicted with arthritis, said, “They say her needs are not substantial because she can get dressed and be wheeled into the shower that we had installed at our own expense. Of course she can’t dress herself but we manage it between us in about an hour and a half every day. They used to give me a break from caring once a month and took her into a care home for 24 hours, but of course it’s all stopped. But we soldier on—what else can we do?”. What else indeed?
Neither should we ignore the financial consequences of caring. There are extra heating bills, not to mention extra laundry, specialist foods and so on, but what causes most frustration among older carers is a lack of recognition within the benefits system. Those caring for more than 35 hours a week are entitled to carer’s allowance, currently just over £58 a week, but if you are in receipt of the state pension you cannot receive carer’s allowance because of the overlapping benefit rule. You are doing no less caring but you cannot be recognised financially. That causes a great deal of frustration and anger among older carers.
I turn briefly to those older people who provide huge amounts of childcare. This has also been mentioned several times today. Many older people wrote to Carers UK as part of its Sandwich Caring survey and talked about their caring experiences and where they impact on other aspects of their life. Many families rely on grandparents to provide childcare for their children while they are at work. In fact, grandparents are the biggest providers of childcare, as we all know. However, many found themselves caring at the same time for a parent with a sudden illness, a long-term condition, a stroke or dementia, and were therefore unable to provide the vital childcare in the way that they had done. They were painfully aware of the financial pressures this placed on their sons and daughters, not to mention the fact that they had enjoyed spending time with their grandchildren. More investment in care and a stronger care system, integrated better with health, would enable more of these grandparents to do both. As women have children later in life, this linking of caring responsibilities with grandparenting will become much more widespread.
Chronic underfunding has led to a crisis in our social care system, putting huge pressure on existing care services, the NHS and particularly on family members who provide care. This brings costs not only for carers and the people they care for but for the economy and public services more widely. Demand for the unpaid care provided by families and carers is increasing, and it has been estimated that nearly 3.5 million additional carers will be needed by 2037.
The care and support White Paper published in July presents a positive vision for the future, as does the draft Care and Support Bill, which is about to begin pre-legislative scrutiny; I declare an interest as a member of that committee. The Bill strengthens the rights of carers and those using care and support services, as well as bringing clarity and accessibility to social care law. However, a significant gap remains between the demand for care and support services and the ability of local government to provide good-quality social care to those in need. If this funding gap is not filled, and if a fairer and more sustainable model for the future funding of social care is not agreed, families and society will continue to pay the price.
I have said many times in your Lordships’ House that if we as a nation do not change our attitude to care and caring needs, we will be in serious trouble. We seem wilfully to ignore the fact that most of us will need care at some point in our lives. Report after report shows us that we do not plan for that and are not even aware that we will have to pay for social care. I ask the Minister, as I have asked others: when may we expect a reply from the Government to the Dilnot report and when may we expect this new thinking on social care to come on to the public service agenda?
I focused on the serious subject of providing and needing care, which can be depressing. If ever I am depressed about the passing years, I think of the example set for me by my auntie Ida. She is 94, lives alone, has an active social life, grows all her own fruit and vegetables and, as the Seville orange season approaches in January, will be preparing for her marathon marmalade-making session. She makes about 150 jars to give away because, as she puts it, “I like to make it for all the old people, bless them”.