Recent stats on caring

I’ve been delving into the Department of Work and Pensions Family Resources Survey 2016/17 published recently. It contains statistics in five broad categories: Income and State Support; Tenure; Disability; Care; and Pensions.

It is the Care statistics which I’d like to highlight today. I’ve written previously on this site about carers, highlighting the prevalence of women doing the majority of care-work around the world.

These recent Family Resources Survey stats show that the largest portion of informal care is for ageing parents. 33% of this care is for parents not living in the same household, whilst 7% care for parents living with the carer. The next largest portion of informal care is the 19% caring for a spouse or partner in their own household.

Informal care includes

helping with shopping, preparing meals and feeding, household chores, dressing, washing. In 2016/17, 8 per cent (5.4 million) of people were informal carers.

Women do more informal caring than men, up to the age of 84. The last category, of those aged over 85, is the only one in which more men are carers than women.

Forty-eight per cent of men providing informal care were in full-time employment compared to 26 per cent of women. Women providing informal care were much more likely to be in part-time employment than men; 25 per cent of women providing informal care worked part-time compared to 8 per cent of men.

Looking at the effect on daily life, 29% of informal carers provided more than 35 hours of care per week. Many unpaid hours of care are given by men and women up and down this country every day.

We need to value the free work which undergirds our society. It is one reason I am keen on a citizen’s income. A basic income would value, in a small way, the thousands of hours of care that is currently gratuitous. It seems the fairest way to recognise the extraordinary contribution many are making to society.

A link to the datasets and tables is here.

* Kirsten Johnson is the PPC for North Devon and Day Editor of Lib Dem Voice.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarSean Hagan 19th Jan - 6:11pm
    @Michael BG - thank you for clarifying the basis of your calculations surrounding the parliamentary arithmetic. However, although your numbers seem to add up (give...
  • User AvatarMick Taylor 19th Jan - 5:46pm
    Jayne MANSFIELD: Flattering as it is to be compared to Buddy Holly, the image is of me, aged 18, speaking at the 1968 Liberal Assembly...
  • User AvatarSean Hagan 19th Jan - 5:28pm
    P.S. Further to my previous comments ... As others have implored, it would be helpful if political comment on LDV could be conducted on the...
  • User AvatarTrevor Smith 19th Jan - 4:57pm
    I was chair when I got the change from UULS ( Union of University Liberal Societies) essentially a federal student body) to ULS - the...
  • User AvatarSean Hagan 19th Jan - 4:23pm
    @Katherine Pindar - yes indeed, wise words (again) from Sir John who, in hindsight, was perhaps a rather better ex-PM than he is generally given...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 19th Jan - 4:09pm
    @ Simon Hebditch "or am I wrong ?" No, Simon, you are completely correct............. yet some of the early middle aged Lib Dem establishment just...