UK Parliament / Open data

Welfare Reform Bill

This amendment would remove Clause 14(1)(b), which abolishes the carer’s allowance increase for adult dependants. This benefit is fiendishly complicated. The carer’s allowance is called an income maintenance benefit, which can be increased if another adult is financially dependent on the recipient. The adult dependency increases date back to 1948 when on the whole men were the breadwinners and women were the homemakers, so the increases were mostly paid to men for women. Adult dependency increases—ADIs—are paid at different rates for each benefit. The highest rates are payable with contributory long-term benefits, and the lowest with non-contributory benefits. It was announced in December 2006 that ADIs in the carer’s allowance would be removed for new claims from 2010, aligning the allowance with ADIs in the state pension and other benefits. The reason given in the impact assessment—the Peers’ information pack is, sadly, completely silent on this clause—is said to be, ""an important step in moving towards a simpler benefits system which is easier to understand and operate, and helps reduce error"." It is also thought to be outdated as many couples have their own incomes. However, many carers will receive £30.20 a week less in benefit income than they would under the existing rules. At present, around 17,400 carers receive an ADI, and there are an estimated 2,400 new claims each year, including an award of an ADI. We are assured that income support or pension credit will ensure that most carers do not lose out. However, the impact assessment, under the little heading "Risk of Negative Impact", says: ""Any negative impact can be mitigated through ensuring adequate information in the run up to the change and promoting awareness of Income Support/Pension Credit. This would be consistent with the Government’s commitment to advice services"." Are we quite sure that this will be adequate? I should be glad for some reassurances from the Minister. Does he envisage any circumstances in which someone could be worse off when this part of the Bill takes effect? I beg to move.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c35-6GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top