Bill Kidd MSP has written to Ian Duncan Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asking for clarification on the future position of carers under the new Universal Credit proposed in the White Paper: Universal Credit: welfare that works.

• The statement: ‘All governments, since 1976, when Invalid Care Allowance was introduced, have faced the dilemma that increasing the level of benefit is neither affordable nor cost effective.’ [p19], appears to seriously undervalue the contribution that carers make to society, including the huge savings they make to public finances by providing informal, unpaid care.
• The confusing uncertainty surrounding the future of Carers Allowance contained in the words: ‘The Government is carefully considering whether changes to Carer’s Allowance will be necessary to take account of the introduction of Universal Credit and provide clearer more effective support for carers.’ [p19]
• And that, whilst the paper states that recipients of Universal Credit will not be required to face conditionality if they have: ‘intensive and regular caring responsibilities,’ [p31], this last statement indicates a possible tightening of the future definition of who is, or is not, a carer.

Bill Kidd, SNP MSP for Glasgow, said: “I find it unacceptable that the current Carers Allowance is lower than other income-replacement benefits. Currently Carers Allowance is only £53.90 per week, compared to £65.45 for Jobseeker’s Allowance (for the over 25s). Yet the White Paper makes no concrete proposals to rectify this; rather it throws the future of Carer’s Allowance into confusion

“I am also alarmed and disappointed by the frank admission that UK Governments have declined to increase Carers Allowance apparently because they think it would be too expensive to do so. In my view carers save the Public Purse billions by their informal care.

“I am very concerned that ‘conditionality’, i.e. the requirement to seek or prepare for work or face sanctions, may be extended to some current carers because of the requirement that the care provided be: ‘intensive.’ To my mind this may potentially exclude some carers who provide supervision to the severely disabled.

“I hope that Ian Duncan Smith can clarify and allay these concerns as soon as possible."

Notes:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/universal-credit/

Motion to the Scottish Parliament:

S3M-07402 Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (Scottish National Party): Universal Credit and an Uncertain Future for Carers— That the Parliament expresses concern at the position of carers that has arisen from the proposals in the UK Government’s White Paper Universal Credit: welfare that works; considers that the paper’s statement that “All governments, since 1976, when Invalid Care Allowance was introduced, have faced the dilemma that increasing the level of benefit is neither affordable nor cost effective” appears to seriously undervalue the contribution that carers make to society, including the huge savings it believes that they make to public finances by providing informal, unpaid care; is concerned about what it considers is the confusing uncertainty surrounding the future of Carer’s Allowance arising from the words “The Government is carefully considering whether changes to Carer’s Allowance will be necessary to take account of the introduction of Universal Credit and provide clearer more effective support for carers”, and is further concerned that the paper states that recipients of Universal Credit will not be required to face conditionality if they have “intensive and regular caring responsibilities”, believing that this indicates a possible tightening of the future definition of who is or is not a carer.