---

Carers

That is another powerful example, and I thank the hon. Gentleman, my Committee colleague, for it. There are also powerful disincentives. The Government and the Committee have focused on enabling people to work or to stay in work, but the reality is that to qualify for the allowance one cannot earn more than £95 in paid employment. With all the extra costs and burdens, that is not sensible. It means that many carers cannot work for a little bit when they want to, even though that could save the state money while enabling them to get by more easily. Again, that must change, and change now. The Committee Chairman and others mentioned the issue of complexity. Of all the evidence we heard, the most extraordinary, for many of us, was the nonsense of older carers going through the process of claiming carer's benefits and being told that they were eligible, but then being told that they could not have them because of overlapping benefits. We found that hard to understand; we found it hard even to believe that it was happening, with computers pumping letters out to them. Let us not forget the emotional effects, either. All the carers and carers' organisations that we spoke to said that the complexity puts people off applying for even those limited benefits, which they and the person for whom they care so desperately need. I must echo what the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) said. I have already said that, looking to the future, the simplification of the overall benefits system is a positive thing, but, with a united voice, the Committee wants strongly to convey the message that the situation of carers must be changed and simplified now; it cannot wait for the wider picture. We believe that it is perfectly possible to simplify the situation so that they receive more adequate benefits and move away from the nonsense and the disincentives. I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to that. As well as addressing the overlapping benefits issue that older carers face, any examination and reform of the benefit system must consider the 21-hour study rule, which one Member has already mentioned, because we must remember the emotional well-being of carers. We heard very powerfully in Harrogate and on other visits about how it is so important for carers—who are themselves isolated and often stuck at home, except when they go to the shops for essentials—to study. At the moment, they cannot, but it is good for them and, once their caring ends, it supplies them with potential. The system pays no attention to what happens after caring stops, and, for older people, the sad reality is that many carers outlive those for whom they care. What happens then, when, perhaps for many years, the carer's life has meant caring for that loved one? What happens after that? Unless we provide more support, allowing people to study, train and focus on getting a job after caring has ended, we will not have done a joined-up job.