§ 7.30 p.m.
§ Mrs. KnightI beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, at end insert:
'(2) A woman who has become entitled to any benefits under the Insurance Act and who ceases to be an employed or self-employed person in order to care, without payment, for a member of her family in respect of whom an attendance allowance is payable, and who thereafter ceases to pay any of the contributions which she is liable to pay under Part I of that Act, shall be entitled to benefits under that Act paid at the same rates to which she would have been entitled if she had continued, from the date of her ceasing employment for the purpose referred to above, to pay all the contributions for which she would have been liable'.The amendment is an endeavour to help a group which has very few trumpeters on its behalf—the single women. Many disadvantaged groups are, paradoxically and happily, benefited because their disadvantage has been noticed, commented upon and acted upon by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. But the unmarried woman is doubly disadvantaged as very few people seem to care about her predicament. Although the Secretary of State mentioned widows and other groups in her Second Reading speech, she did not mention spinsters. I am sorry that the right hon. Lady has left the Chamber and so will not hear what I have to say now on their behalf.To make the case for the amendment I should like to cite a constituent who is an unmarried lady of almost 50. She lost her fiancé in the war, and shortly after the war her father died. Because her mother was in indifferent health, she felt it her duty not to leave home but to stay and look after her. For almost 30 years she has looked after her mother at the same time as doing a full-time job. It is not easy, and as her mother has become older and weaker the burden on my constituent has increased. She has to go off to work in the morning having tried to see that the old lady will be all right for the day while she is away.
One day a week my constituent has a home help, but apart from that the old lady is by herself for all the hours her 516 daughter is at work. My constituent is increasingly worried about her mother's condition. She has tried repeatedly over the past two or three years to find someone she can afford to pay to look after her while she is at work, but she has not been able to find such a help.
My constituent is a trusted and expert employee, with a salary of about £32 a week. She now faces the problem of having no alternative but to give up her job and stay at home to look after her mother, who is nearly 80. The difficulty is that she will be neither unemployed nor sick and, therefore, not capable of drawing any benefit on her own behalf. She will certainly not be self-employed. She will be classed as non-employed Class 3.
What is my constituent to do about paying her stamp? At the age of nearly 50 she recognises that in 10 years' time she will receive her pension, but unless she pays her stamp herself she will not receive the full pension. She is not too sure exactly what she will receive. Unfortunately, in dropping from a salary of just over £32 a week to nothing she will be in a serious situation and may be eligible for social security. She has not yet had the answer on that matter. I have not checked whether she and her mother own the house in which they live. If not, they may be eligible for rent rebate or help of some kind with the rent and rates.
All that is certain is that the income going into her house will be her mother's pension and the £6.20 attendance allowance. The attendance allowance is paid at the highest rate, because the mother needs care throughout the day and night. If my constituent's income is less than £520 a year, she can apply for a small income exception and then she can pay a Class 3 contribution. But that is £1.23 a week, which is quite a lot of money for my constituent to find in the circumstances in which she envisages she will he. She feels that she may well not be able to afford to pay that, even if—and there are many "ifs" in this case—she is eligible to come under that rule.
She still would not be covered for sickness or unemployment if she were to pay the £1.23. Within three or four years the old lady may die, and my constituent may seek another job. If she cannot find one—at her age it may not be all 517 that easy—she will not have covered herself by the £1.23 contribution if she becomes unemployed or sick. All that she will receive is her pension entitlement. If she cannot afford to pay at all from now on, leaving her work to look after her mother, I understand that at present rates her pension will be only £6.26 instead of the £7.75 for a woman of 60. On the basis of the Bill the figure for a single woman of 60 will be about £10, but she will draw only about £8 a week. Therefore, if she paid out the £1.23 every week as a Class 3 contribution all she would receive in benefit would be an extra 26p on top of the money she had paid in. That is a very hard position to be in.
Suppose that my constituent does not give up her job. Suppose she says "I cannot afford to give it up. I do not know how I shall live." She may apply pressure to social workers and others to get her mother into an old persons' home. The latest figures I could obtain for the cost of keeping a person in such a home are for the year 1971–72. The average figure in London was then £17.50 a week and in the provinces it was £16. It is probably much more than that now, and it will certainly be more in the future.
But this old lady is far from well and, therefore, may not be suitable for an old persons' home. Suppose she has a place in a geriatric hospital. The lowest 1972–73 figure that I could find for the weekly cost of keeping a patient in a geriatric hospital was £39.2. If she is in a geriatric bed in an ordinary hospital, as she might well have to be because of the pressure on beds in geriatric hospitals, the cost to the State will be £91.54 a week.
Therefore, I feel sure that hon. Members will readily accept my contention that my constituent is saving the State so much by looking after her mother at home that we should not be so mean and niggardly as to tell her that she must take a cut in her pension because of the duties she is undertaking for her mother.
I am convinced that there are many women who deserve and need our help and for whom little is done. We all acknowledge and accept that widows need help and we are glad to see what is being done for them in the Bill. However, single women have never had a husband to care for them or to provide for them. They have never had anyone 518 to manage their affairs for them, and very often a certain age group of unmarried ladies have elderly relatives to look after.
If the amendment were accepted—hon. Members will understand what I seek to do—we would not only actuarially be getting a good bargain by encouraging women to stay at home and to take on attendance duties instead of having to let their relatives go into homes and hospitals but we would be making a much happier home for the old lady and for my constituent.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) for providing the opportunity for the House to consider a problem of concern to all right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Lady is eminently right to say that we rarely if ever discuss human problems of this kind with any sort of party animus.
The hon. Lady referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have been asked to say that she regrets having had to leave the Committee during this debate. She is away on ministerial duties and will return to the Committee as soon as she can. She will read what has been said by the hon. Lady with all her customary interest in human problems.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for notifying me that there had been a change in her amendment. I understand her difficulties, but the amendment is still unclear. Its intention, which has now been explained, is to give credits to a woman who gives up work to look after a relative who is receiving attendance allowance, thus enabling her to retain her entitlement to full benefits, notably retirement pension. The amendment is technically defective.
We have not been able to estimate the cost of the amendment. The provision of credits for women who give up work to look after sick or elderly relatives is one of the objectives of the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants. The council also urges the provision of a cash benefit for a woman in that position. I am familiar with the council's work and its aims, and I believe 519 that the Committee will agree that it provides a useful service.
At present a woman in the position which the hon. Lady has described can claim supplementary benefit, which can include the cost of a non-employed person's contribution. The latest figures show that 10,000 women in that position are receiving supplementary benefit. In addition, there are are some 4,500 men. As the full rate of retirement pension is payable when the person's contribution record averages 50 a year, it is possible for a woman to qualify for a full pension even though she has missed paying a number of contributions.
The approach which successive Governments have adopted is that giving up work to meet attendance needs is not an insurable contingency and that supplementary benefit, without the usual requirement to register for work, provides an appropriate and flexible means of helping those daughters or other close relatives who stay at home to provide care and attention.
7.45 p.m.
The review of social security provision for the chronically sick and disabled that is currently in progress includes the circumstances and needs of their families. This review is being carried out under Section 36 of the Social Security Act 1973 and my right hon. Friend is required to report to Parliament by 31st October 1974. In the circumstances it would be premature to attempt to deal with one small part of the problem in isolation. Those who have the interests of this deserving group at heart can reasonably be asked to await the comprehensive report which will be presented.
What the hon. Lady has said will do a great deal to inform opinion outside the House. We are deeply pledged to meet the requirement of Section 36 of the Social Security Act 1973. In the circumstances I hope that the hon. Lady will agree to withdraw her amendment. She knows of my personal interest in the problem. I think she will appreciate that I am working extremely hard to meet the requirements of Section 36 of the Social Security Act 1973.
§ Mrs. KnightI shall be perfectly happy to seek to withdraw the amendment. I intended not to cause a vote but to bring 520 the problem to the notice of the House of Commons. I take on board the point that the Minister has made—namely, that men are sometimes faced with similar circumstances and that the amendment refers only to women. I know of men giving up their jobs to look after their wives. It would be wrong if they did not receive help. It is true that arrangements are made, as I described them under Class 3, for my constituent and others like her to pay a £1.23 stamp, but that does not cover the lady for all benefits. That is one of the points which perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to consider. Having had his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.