Hansard

This has been a good debate. Many of us can draw on our own experiences, as many of us have been carers at one point or another. However, we would not be here in this chamber if we had a long-term caring role. As Jayne Baxter said, many people have that role for a lifetime. Parents of disabled children and carers for people with long-term conditions, for example, do not see their caring role as one that will end; they see it as part of their day-to-day lives. It is hard for us to appreciate what that means, especially if that role is unsupported. People in that position face huge difficulties. I have a constituent whose own health is failing and who finds it difficult to see what the future holds, because she does not know how long she can continue to provide care and she does not know what support there will be for her.

We all agree that carers need more support, but there are dividing lines, and I want to go back to those. We are keen that the eligibility criteria be set nationally for the carers who are most in need, so that they do not face a postcode lottery and can get help when they need it. There are powers to impose national eligibility criteria, and the minister should consider using them if need be. However, the problem is that he would have to consider how to fund that approach. I sometimes think that the funding and the national eligibility criteria are very much two sides of the same coin. We need to ensure that carers get the support that they need. As Johann Lamont said, rights need to be enforceable or they are not rights at all. That is important. If the funding is not available locally to provide the support for carers, there will be no support at all.

The committee heard evidence about the cost of carrying out an assessment. That was hugely underestimated in the financial memorandum. More funding has been put into short breaks, but one carer told me that, because of the complex needs of the person she was caring for, it would cost thousands of pounds to replace her for one week. Carers save the state a fortune, as Johann Lamont said, and we need to ensure that, when they need our support, we acknowledge the amount that they save us. That carer was saving the state thousands and thousands of pounds but, because of the amount of money that is involved in replacing the care that she gives, we cannot see how she will get a break.

Nanette Milne talked about planning for discharges from hospital. We have both heard of the case in which a person was sent home on oxygen, which meant that they could not use their gas fire or their cooker—they could not eat and they were freezing cold. How on earth could someone think that they could send someone home in those circumstances? We often hear of someone being discharged and going back to a house that is not appropriate for them any more, as they can no longer access bedrooms, bathrooms or whatever. A lot more thought has to be given to how we send people home and also how the carer will cope when we do that.

Emergency and future planning are important, and I am glad that they are in the bill. I am also glad that the minister pointed out that bereavement support and planning will be part of that future planning. The way in which we support carers who are providing care in a palliative setting is difficult enough, but what happens when they lose the person they love is difficult, too, and we cannot abandon them at that point.

Short breaks really have to be for the good of the carer, not respite for the cared-for person. The cared-for person might need to get away for a change of scene and a break from their surroundings, but that does not give the carer a short break in the same way. We need to think separately and differently about breaks for the carer.

A number of people talked about the workforce, and we need to involve all the relevant bodies and voluntary organisations in the preparation of the plans and statements, not only because they have a real insight into the issues but because there are not enough social workers to do that work. That was one of the worries about the bill. Where would we find all the social workers to do the necessary work? They are already overworked. Plans and statements need to be based on the needs of the carer, rather than on budgets.

GMB told me that, when its members look at support plans for cared-for people, they often omit interventions because they know that they cannot be funded from the budget. That is really not right.

Joan McAlpine talked about the living wage for care workers. Labour members have asked the Government for that, but it has voted down our attempts to introduce it. Joan McAlpine also talked about the £200 million for community care. That money is going into the health budgets, not the local government budgets, so it will do nothing to help local government and its funding crisis.