Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I met the WASPI campaign in opposition when I was appointed shadow Work and Pensions Minister. The Minister for Pensions was the first of her kind to meet the WASPI campaign for eight years, and she is happy to meet them again. I say to the hon. Lady, who feels very deeply about the issue, that we will learn all the lessons from what went wrong with the delay in sending the letters out, but we do not agree that even if we had done that, they would have made the difference that the ombudsman claims. This is not about the matter being too complicated; we do not believe that, when 90% of women aged 45 to 54 knew the state pension age was increasing, a flat-rate compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

The all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality has found that huge numbers of women have suffered significant financial hardship; many have even lost their homes. The Secretary of State must realise that her apology is welcome, but that it is not enough for them. Frankly, it is unprecedented for a Government to agree with the findings of an ombudsman on the one hand, but, on the other, to refuse to initiate redress when clear injustice has occurred. What will the Secretary of State say to reassure those women who have lost everything?

[Liz Kendall]

I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend raises, but I reiterate the findings from the ombudsman’s report that there was no direct financial loss. We agree that those letters should have been sent out earlier. We will learn all the lessons needed to put that right. I am more than happy to discuss precisely how we will do that with the all-party parliamentary group, so that that kind of maladministration of sending out letters never happens again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

I would very much welcome such an initiative being brought forward in the hon. Member’s constituency of Newbury. He may also be pleased to know that there is the potential for a youth hub to open in Newbury, similar to that in Oxford, which was grant funded and is already in operation.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

8. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of levels of pension contributions for auto-enrolled pensions for lower earners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)]

Due to the introduction of auto-enrolment, which is at least one policy that has cross-party support—it was legislated for by the last Labour Government and was taken forward by the coalition Government—there has been a 92% increase in the number of employees saving into a workplace pension scheme since 2012, which is over 10 million people saving for a pension who were not saving previously.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The Minister will be aware that around 10% of people automatically enrolled into workplace pension schemes choose to opt out, often due to low pay and cost of living pressures, leaving them losing out not only on building up their contributions, but on the top-ups of their employers. Would the Minister consider a simple tweak and allow employer contributions, which would have been due in any event, to continue in such opt-out circumstances?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which is indeed an interesting idea. It is one that was put forward recently by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and I will consider it. In the pension schemes Bill, which we will introduce next year, low earners with multiple small pots will have those pots consolidated, so that the money works better for them and gives them a better retirement in the future.

Food Banks

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for his passionate and articulate contribution.

In Salford, we have some amazing and dedicated people running food banks and networks, but they should not need to exist. Charities and good people should not have to step in to provide for the most fundamental human need in one of the richest economies in the world. We know the cause of this crisis: 14 years of austerity-driven spending cuts, labour market casualisation and welfare reform, hammering the poorest and most vulnerable. Today, there are millions of children across our country who are going to bed hungry.

A previous Chancellor, Gordon Brown, who championed the eradication of child poverty, understood the policy-driven agenda of the previous Government. He said:

Since 2010, you’ve had the two-child rule. You’ve had the benefit cap. You’ve had Housing Benefit limits imposed. You’ve had this series of deductions which have become very widespread so that half of the people receiving benefits were having deductions. So, at every point, plus the freezing of benefits including child benefit, you’ve got people being made worse off.

During his time in government, ending child poverty was a key mission. He believed that it was possible in his lifetime, and frankly it still is. I welcome the Minister’s hard work on this issue and I know she agrees wholeheartedly. The Government’s child poverty taskforce is welcome and so too is the strengthening of workplace and trade union rights. These initiatives will take time, and there are immediate actions that charities are strongly encouraging the Government to take. That includes ending the two-child limit and developing a long-term scheme and funding settlement for local crisis support after the current household support fund ends. It also includes implementing an essentials guarantee that would introduce a protected minimum floor in universal credit, to ensure that families facing hardship do not go without essentials such as food and fuel. It includes extending free school meals to all primary-school children and setting out plans to address holiday hunger after the latest funding for the holiday activities and food programme ends. Ultimately, we need to recognise that regular daily access to affordable, safe and nutritious food should neither be a charitable act nor a luxury but a basic right.

Carer’s Allowance

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s opening comments. It is clear that she is fully cognisant of many of the issues that I am about to raise. I also welcome the announcement of the independent Government review of carer’s allowance overpayments, which I hope will be carried out urgently. I hope it will consider writing off substantial overpayments, where it is clear that carers should have been notified sooner.

On the wider issues faced by unpaid carers, I start by reading out an email from a constituent:

“I cared for my mother, who had Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia plus severe osteoarthritis, for several years. At the time of this, if the person requiring care was deemed capable of performing any self-care tasks, only part of the Carer’s Allowance was paid. My mother would, occasionally, wipe a flannel over her face and was therefore deemed to be capable of self-care, despite all other evidence.

Caring for someone is not a 9 to 5 job, it is often a 24 hour job, as in my case, with no break for the carer (as few are ever told about respite care). Those who manage employment outside the home are also overburdened, as they have no time to decompress from their paid employment before having to spend their time at home caring for someone.

Due to the nature of being a carer, the carer’s physical and mental health often declines and goes untreated as they often have no help with their situation from the Authorities or, should they have them, siblings. That alone can impact the carer’s own physical and mental health, but carers go unnoticed until there is a crisis.

To only receive the paltry current Carer’s Allowance, which will barely cover utilities and Council Tax, ignoring food and clothing, is an insult to people who are working far harder than most but remain unseen as it is not deemed to be a ‘real job’ and is considered ‘easy.’ Only those who have cared for another adult know this is blatantly untrue.”

Sadly, my constituent’s feelings are not rare. Many people care for their loved ones out of love and, all too often, it impacts on their ability to work, resulting in many living in poverty. A new report from Carers UK and WPI Economics found that 1.2 million unpaid carers are living in poverty, while one in 10 of all carers are in deep poverty. It is not hard to understand why, as carer’s allowance is the lowest benefit of its kind—currently, just £81.90 a week—and it is available only to carers who can prove that they provide more than 35 hours of unpaid care a week.

[Nesil Caliskan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence shows that it is disproportionately women who are carers, and therefore women who experience those levels of poverty because of the low figure she mentioned?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I agree with them.

To solve the crisis, Care UK’s modelling suggests that an immediate uplift, an increase in the earnings limit and an earnings taper would lift huge numbers out of poverty. However, a number of brutal loopholes, already highlighted by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), need to be addressed urgently, including the rules on young carers and students. Many people do not know that carer’s allowance is not paid to those studying for more than 21 hours a week. A number of young carers in Salford have told me that that means they are often excluded from any support. The pressures on them to study and care for their loved ones are immense, all while often living in extreme poverty. Sadly, many feel they have no option but to leave education aged 16.

Further, if a carer is looking after more than one person for a cumulative amount of 35 hours a week, the carer is not eligible to receive carer’s allowance. If two people share the care, each providing 35 hours a week, only one person can claim carer’s allowance.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I support the sentiment that we need more funding and support for carers—more finance, more money—but the email the hon. Lady read out powerfully showed that it is not just money that carers need. They need much broader support to give respite and relief, and to allow them to address their own mental health concerns that arise from their job, as well as support to stay in education longer, as she mentioned. Although money is important, does she agree that carers need the much wider community support that charities and other local groups can give?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Unfortunately, the ability of local authorities to reach out to carers who are struggling and directly offer them the respite care they should be entitled to has been hampered, certainly in the past 10 to 14 years. The burden of stepping in has been left to many charities. For those who live in an area with a large charitable presence, that is fantastic, but unfortunately not a lot of unpaid carers live in such areas. That is an issue that the Government must grapple with.

Another brutal issue, which is relatively unknown, is that of pensions. As far as I am aware, carer’s allowance does not get paid to those in receipt of the state pension, unless the state pension amount is lower than the weekly value of carer’s allowance. As with the pension credit threshold, at the moment a huge number of people are just over the cusp of eligibility; they live in poverty but cannot access the help they need.

There is another brutal loophole for pensioners receiving care. The Government website currently states:

“When you get Carer’s Allowance, the person you care for will usually stop getting: a severe disability premium paid with their benefits”

or

“an extra amount for severe disability paid with Pension Credit”.

That left one of my constituents, whose daughter provides care but does not live with her, in a situation where she is not entitled to the top-up in pension credit that she should be entitled to, which she needs to survive and to deal with her daily living costs as a severely disabled person.

I wanted to highlight those points, but I will bring my comments to a close as many colleagues want to speak. I welcome the encouraging comments made by my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. I encourage them to address the loopholes that have been mentioned urgently and, as I am sure they are doing already, to encourage action from the Chancellor at the upcoming Budget, so that we can provide the financial and social support our unpaid carers desperately need.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for his comments, which I associate myself with, and for his hard work over the years on the all-party parliamentary group. I also thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate.

We all know how we got here. For people watching at home, many women born in the 1950s retired at 60 in the belief that they would receive their full state pension, only to realise that the Government had increased the retirement age by five years and not told them. Many had handed in their notice at work, and in many cases those women were forced to exist on meagre welfare benefits that left them living a hand-to-mouth existence. Many were left destitute. Some even lost their home. Many experienced depression, and some were even suicidal. That is a scandal and a clear injustice.

I give my warmest thanks to all the 1950s women against state pension inequality campaign groups, on behalf of myself, the hon. Member for Waveney and all members of the all-party group. I also thank the 5,000 women in my constituency of Salford and Eccles who were born in the 1950s, in particular a lady called Judith Robertson and the women of the WASPI Campaign 2018, who have set up stalls in our local supermarkets, and lobbied me and other MPs on this important issue. We all recognise the determination and strength of these brave women. Their relentless campaigning against this profound injustice is the reason why we are here today.

The issue is not whether these women faced injustice; the ombudsman’s report makes it clear that they did, that the DWP was guilty of maladministration, that these women are entitled to compensation urgently from the Government, and that Parliament must urgently identify a mechanism for ensuring that. I will briefly make a few comments about the ombudsman’s report for clarity. First, it is important to stress that the ombudsman has looked at only one aspect of injustice: maladministration by the DWP—that is, whether they adequately notified the women affected by the change to their pension age. The ombudsman’s remit was not to look at the wider discriminatory impact of the policy; that has been left unaddressed.

Sadly, the UK’s pension system systematically favoured men in this age group. They often receive higher state pensions, and even higher private pensions. Many of these women affected spent significant periods out of the workforce caring for their children and family members. That was coupled with a gender pay gap that was far more acute during their time in the workforce than it is today, so they were already at a disadvantage in terms of their ability to contribute to their private and state pensions. The only element that went some small way towards addressing the gender pension gap was that the national insurance pension was paid to women from age 60, whereas it was paid to men from age 65. Obviously, that advantage was taken away.

The fairness and the gender impact of the policy need to be urgently addressed, and I hope that we continue to fight for that in this House, but today we are focusing on the ombudsman’s findings. The key finding was that the failure by the DWP to adequately inform thousands of women of their state pension age constitutes maladministration. The ombudsman also found that, as a result, some women had lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances, and that the DWP’s failure had diminished women’s sense of personal autonomy and financial control. The ombudsman also recommended that the DWP acknowledge its failings and apologise for its impact on those affected. The report concludes very clearly that the women concerned are entitled to compensation urgently.

We have discussed what the remedy could look like, and the report is very clear that it leaves that open to Parliament to determine. Crucially, it says that finite resources should not be used as an excuse for failing to provide a fair remedy. This is a clear injustice and should be treated as one. If we go down the path of deciding which injustices are and are not deserving, we are in very dangerous territory. The report also points out that HM Treasury requires compensation schemes to be efficient and effective, and to deliver value for money.

In particular, any administrative costs associated with compensation schemes should not be excessive. That leads the ombudsman to suggest that while Parliament might favour a mechanism for assessing individual claims of injustice, it might want to consider the point that a flat-rate payment would deliver a more efficient resolution. A note of caution here: it is important that we consider the impact of that carefully, as some women may be paid far less compensation than they are entitled to.

On the amount of redress, as we heard from the hon. Member for Waveney, the ombudsman’s guidance on financial remedy sets out six levels of compensation. The ombudsman suggests that solely in the very small set of six cases that it assessed, the range could be within level 4, but in further sessions with the Work and Pensions Committee last week, it acknowledged that that small subset may not cover all the extreme financial situations that many women affected have faced; that could be addressed by an appropriate redress mechanism that Parliament looks at.

All the women’s campaign groups that have contacted the all-party group so far have stated that setting compensation at level 4 would be grossly insufficient, and I agree. When gathering evidence, the all-party group found that in a vast number of cases the injustice was actually at level 6, and that was the recommendation that the all-party group made to the ombudsman.

A whole range of options are being discussed, from a flat-rate payment to a flat-rate tapered payment, the bell curve that the hon. Member for Waveney spoke about, a flat-rate payment with top-ups over a five-year period or mediation for 1950s women alongside an initial payment, to address the full scale of loss and discrimination faced. Whatever option Parliament chooses to take, it is important that it is not means-tested, that it is fast, fair and enshrined in legislation and, most importantly, that it garners the support of the women affected.

However, there is one major hurdle before us. Before we even get to the point of discussing and fine-tuning any proposals the Government have, they must first lay before Parliament their proposed redress mechanism. There is no excuse for delay. The report was laid before Parliament in March; it is now May, and still we have no Government response. It is just not acceptable. We have heard that nearly 280,000 women have already died waiting for justice and as we speak, at least one woman will die waiting for justice every 13 minutes. I say to the Government, “Just do the right thing and, as a matter of urgency, lay before Parliament a mechanism for redress so we can all act in accordance with the ombudsman’s recommendations.”

Health and Disability Reform

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I know the Prime Minister shares the view that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to our GPs, right up and down the country. They have a highly pressurised job, and they do it extremely well. DWP assessors are highly trained individuals, and there are very clear guidelines on how assessments should be fairly conducted. They are, as the hon. and learned Lady will know, open to appeal where that is necessary. She mentions GPs. As part of the assessments, which are concluded by a DWP team member, rather than the assessor themselves, taking into account all the evidence, it may well be that GPs have an input into many of the decisions.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State must understand that the rhetoric coming from the Government over the past few weeks has been brutal, divisive and inducing unimaginable terror in the two thirds of people already in destitution who have a chronic health condition or disability. The prospect of further cuts is making the situation worse. Can he confirm whether he expects overall Government PIP spending to be reduced and, if so, by how much, and what assessment he has made of how his proposals will affect those who are already in material deprivation?

[Mel Stride]

The presumption that the hon. Lady makes is that the alternative to consulting on a different and potentially much better way forward is to do nothing at all. To me, that is unacceptable. In terms of ensuring that we truly support all those who need support, I have already given that reassurance from the Dispatch Box. It is made very clear in the consultation that we recognise that there will be people who need more support than they are receiving at the moment, but we need to have that conversation in order to get the best outcomes.

Women’s State Pension Age

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Given that we have not yet responded to the findings of the ombudsman, for the reasons that I gave—this needs to be done in a diligent and careful manner—I am not sure that the hon. Member’s assertion holds water. The report was five years in the making. It covers highly complex matters, and many questions are raised as a consequence. We will look at those questions and those findings extremely carefully and come to the House without undue delay while engaging with the House in an appropriate way, which is what we did with the ombudsman.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The report’s central finding of fact is that women born in the 1950s could not make informed decisions about their finances and that their sense of “personal autonomy and financial control” was “diminished”, with tens of thousands plunged into poverty. The issue now is not whether those women faced injustice, because the report makes it clear that they did, that they are entitled to urgent compensation from the Government, and that Parliament must “identify a mechanism” for providing appropriate redress. Will the Secretary of State allay my concerns that he is not proposing to question the ombudsman’s findings and that, rather, after the Easter recess, he will return to set out appropriate mechanisms for redress that we can debate in the House?

[Mel Stride]

We are considering the findings, which need to be considered in their entirety in order to come to a view.

Household Support Fund

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for securing this crucial debate.

Salford City Council recently commissioned Greater Manchester Poverty Action to research the impact of the household support fund. That research showed that the fund has been a vital lifeline for people in Salford. As my colleague stated, nearly 19,000 low-income households access the scheme. That is a staggering 86% increase from the year before and is set to increase even further this year. Therefore, both the Salford City Mayor and all three Salford MPs were extremely concerned that the autumn statement seemingly omitted to clarify the Government’s position with regard to the continuation of the fund.

The Minister must understand that to withdraw this fund at a time when the cost of living crisis is demonstrably outstripping so many incomes will have disastrous consequences for our most vulnerable residents, families and children who simply cannot make ends meet. For so many, cutting this vital lifeline will mean that they are quite simply catapulted into further destitution, hunger, fuel poverty and worse. For many, their health will be put at extreme risk.

Given that the Government are supposedly consulting on the next provisional local government finance settlement, will the Minister provide financial clarity today by confirming the extension of the household support fund? Will she also commit to formally ringfencing financial measures such as the household support fund and the ongoing revenue support grant calculations for local government, to support the most deprived residents during the cost of living crisis? Will she confirm that she will not cut the current services grant for local government, and that she will instead increase it by inflation to reflect the financial pressures that local authorities face at this time? Will she work with the local government sector to urgently address the acute financial pressures facing local authorities?

Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, will the Minister meet me, along with the Salford City Mayor and Salford MPs, to urgently address these issues?

Pension Credit and Cost of Living Support Grant

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) for securing this important debate. I fully support her call for the Government to extend the eligibility period for the £650 pension credit cost of living grant to the end of the financial year.

Independent Age’s analysis of Government figures shows that around one in six older people in the UK live in poverty. Many are already struggling to afford essentials, and with spiralling energy prices and the general cost of living, that is set only to get much worse. I welcomed the support grant itself, and the plan for an additional £300 pensioner cost of living payment. However, sadly, as hon. Members have heard, Independent Age suggests that more than 850,000 pensioners in the UK do not even receive the pension credit to which they are entitled. That is likely due to a combination of digital exclusion, apprehension about applying and social stigma—and that is before they are even eligible for the extra cost of living payment. We must remember that pension credit is a financial top-up for some of the pensioners who are most in need in this country. In many cases, it means that people do not have to choose between heating their homes and eating. Nobody in the world’s fifth biggest economy should ever face that choice.

A great campaign run by Greater Manchester Housing Providers, Independent Age, Age UK Salford and Citizens Advice Salford has been supporting people to take up their pension age benefits. As of June 2022, it estimated there is over £6.3 million of pension credit unclaimed this year in Salford alone. Independent Age estimated that if everybody who is eligible received pension credit, roughly one in three pensioners in poverty would be lifted out of it. That is the impact these payments have on people’s lives.

The Government must step up to ensure that our pensioners—our grandmothers, grandfathers and elderly friends—receive the support they are entitled to in the first place, as well as the additional crisis support. They certainly should not be excluded due to short, strict deadlines when we know that these exclusion factors are already at play. This is not just about compassion; as we heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, Independent Age estimates that low uptake of pension credit costs the Government £4 billion a year in increased NHS and social care spending. These deadlines are an arbitrary, cruel barrier that the Government are choosing to impose, but they can easily amend them in this time of crisis.

Alongside that, the Government should confirm as a matter of urgency that they will increase income top-ups such as pension credit, not just the state pension, in line with inflation according to the consumer prices index or the higher rate of the pensions triple lock. They should also look urgently at increasing all benefits in line with inflation. According to recent figures from the Resolution Foundation think-tank, the number of all people living in absolute poverty in the UK is projected to rise by 2.9 million between 2021-22 and 2023-24. A real-terms benefit cut would add another 600,000 people to that rise, including 300,000 children.

These are our most economically vulnerable households, and if the magical, mythical unicorn of compassionate conservatism that the Chancellor referred to recently is to be given any meaning at all, the Government can start today by extending the pension credit cost of living grant deadline and uprating benefits and pensions in line with recent inflation figures.

Carer’s Allowance

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) for securing this very important debate, and for his passionate speech—one that I very much agree with. At the last census in 2011, 24,188 people over the age of 16 were carers in Salford. Nationally, Carers UK estimates that there are now 11.5 million people across the UK who give unpaid support to someone who is elderly, seriously ill or disabled. It estimates that, by doing so, unpaid carers are saving the Government a whopping £193 billion a year.

Last year it was noted that there were only 900,000 full-time unpaid carers nationally who received support of any kind, in the form of carer’s allowance. At only £67.25 per week, it is the lowest benefit of its kind. There are so many more who are excluded from receiving carer’s allowance, including: carers in full-time education or studying for 21 hours or more a week; carers earning more than £128 per week, which is less than 15 hours a week on the national living wage; and carers who spend less than 35 hours per week on their caring responsibilities.

It is clear that even before the cost of living crisis, thousands of carers were facing extreme financial hardship. Indeed, a recent survey by Carers UK found that more than a third of those on carer’s allowance are struggling to make ends meet; many had been struggling for months, often relying on food banks to feed themselves and the people they care for. Now, as energy bills increase by up to 50%, inflation rises and the cost of day-to-day essentials skyrockets, there is a real worry that without urgent support from Government many carers and their families will simply be unable to cope. Those in receipt of the menial carer’s allowance have been awarded a 3.1% increase. However, as we know, inflation is set to reach at least 7.5%, so they face a real-terms benefit cut.

New research from Carers UK reveals that the financial pressures on unpaid carers have become untenable. Just under half—45%—of unpaid carers said that they are currently unable to manage their monthly expenses and that any further increase in energy bills will negatively affect their own physical and mental health, or that of the person they care for. Many also said that they were taking difficult steps to manage their monthly expenses; 58% had cut back on heating while 14% had already fallen into arrears with their energy bills. In the months ahead, more than two in five thought that they would not be able to heat their home to a safe level, while a third were worried that they would have to use a food bank.

It is clear that urgent Government action is required. I join Carers UK in calling on the Minister, first, to increase carer’s allowance and other benefits so that they rise in line with current inflation predictions. Secondly, the Government should immediately extend the warm home discount scheme to ensure that it includes carers on the lowest incomes. Thirdly, the Government should increase the paltry earnings limit for those claiming carer’s allowance, so that it is at least equal to 16 hours of work at the national living wage, and provide a carer’s supplement to all carers with an entitlement in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as carers in Scotland have been receiving since 2018.

Unpaid carers are the backbone of our families; they are our mums, dads, brothers, sisters, partners and friends. They support us in our time of need. It is time we gave them the recognition and thanks that they deserve by supporting them too.