Clause 3
12:15 pm
Jeremy Browne (Taunton, Liberal Democrat)
That was extremely useful, and I appreciate the contributions made by other Members. However, I still do not quite understand the point. The Economic Secretary was on the thinnest ice when he said that most of the people who qualify for carer’s benefit would probably be scooped up by other criteria in the Bill, in which case not many people would be disadvantaged. That seems to reinforce the argument for including them on the basis that the cost is presumably negligible, because most of them already qualify by other means. It would feel even more iniquitous to those who do not qualify by other means, when they see that they are in a relatively small minority and others who appear to be in similar circumstances to them are qualifying.
There is a reasonable point about how we treat carers and the impression that is given to them. I do not know whether the Economic Secretary has made any assumption; my impression is that many carers would not choose to open one of these accounts. They might feel that there were other things that they wished to do with their limited income than put it into such a savings scheme. Even if they did, they might not put the full amount of money to which they are entitled into the scheme.
I imagine that the cost to the Government of including those carers who do not qualify by other criteria and who would be inclined to use the scheme to its maximum is fairly small—I am guessing: if the Economic Secretary has any estimate, it would be interesting for the Committee to hear it. The number of people involved is, I think, fairly small, but they would regard that as a gesture of good will. Although I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, I think the interest that has been expressed in it by the Liberal Democrats and by Labour members of the Committee is well intentioned and worthy of the Economic Secretary’s reflection. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.