§ 9. Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest estimate of the numbers caring full-time for elderly and handicapped people in their homes; and how many of these carers are married or cohabiting women.
§ The Under-Secretary for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton)There is insufficient information available on which to base a reliable estimate.
§ Mr. FreudDoes the Under-Secretary accept that carers are saving the country millions of pounds, often at great financial cost and personal sacrifice? Is it not time that his Department turned praise for carers into hard cash? Will he now extend the invalidity care allowance to married and cohabiting women?
§ Mr. NewtonI accept that we all owe a debt of gratitude to these people. We should like to extend invalidity care allowance as and when resources are available, but to carry out such an extension would, according to the last estimate—it was pretty rough and ready and was made two years ago—cost about £100 million gross. We think that that is probably an underestimate. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will understand that there is a problem in moving as fast as we should like.
§ Mr. AlexanderIs not the purpose of the invalidity care allowance to compensate those who cannot work, while relieving the State of burdens? If so, while accepting the financial constraints, may I ask whether there is any reason why it should not be extended to people regardless of sex, whether they be cohabiting women or not, who relieve the State of the same burdens?
§ Mr. NewtonI accept that there is strong argument for moving in that direction. However, like all Ministers in the Department, I have the problem of where to find the resources.
§ Mr. Carter-JonesThe Minister was a member of the Committee that passed the ICA and HNCIP in the hope 845 that the weak in our society would be cared for. That applies to women and men equally. Why do we have we got the household duties test?
§ Mr. NewtonThe hon. Gentleman is surely referring to the HNCIP in mentioning the household duties test, whereas the main thrust of questions has rightly been concerned with the invalid care allowance. That was formerly confined to relatives. We have now extended it to non-relatives. We should like to extend it further, but we are not able to do so at this precise moment.
§ Mr. JohnWill the Minister take this opportunity to deny that, in an attempt to buy off the revolt in the House later this afternoon, he said that the refusal to make good the 5 per cent. shortfall would be diverted to that end? Does he regard that, as I do, as wholly unacceptable both to the unemployed and to those who are caring for sick relatives?
§ Mr. NewtonI have not said that, nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to whom the hon. Gentleman may be referring. No one can make decisions about social security matters on any one front without recognising that there must be decisions on priorities. Money that is spent in one area literally cannot be spent in another.