If you are caring for relatives, you deserve the Government's help The debate on social care so far has quite rightly been centred on how we fund care in the years to come, faced with an aging population and greater life expectancy. This was the main thrust of the Dilnot Commission's report, and will be at the heart of the Government's upcoming White Paper on the future of social care. However, it is worth stepping back from the language of systems, models and demographics, and giving some thought to the forgotten fourth sector. This is the unpaid army of over 6 million carers, who care selflessly for family, friends and neighbours. Of these, Care UK estimates that 1.25 million care for 50 hours a week - well over the 35-hour eligibility threshold for Carer's Allowance, and of this 1.25 million, 300,000 are not claiming the allowance that they are entitled to. It may seem strange in a time of austerity to raise the question of unclaimed benefits. After all, the long-term aim that successive governments have had is to bring down the cost of the welfare system. Nevertheless, we undervalue the role played by carers at our peril. If anything, we have a responsibility to encourage and incentivise carers, and to do so outside of the benefit system, which can so often be intrusive, complicated and degrading. For example, a pensioner who has worked hard all their live, paid into the system, and is even now carrying out what they consider nothing more than their duty to a loved one, should not be put in a position where they feel that they must go cap-in-hand to the Department for Work and Pensions for a pittance. We owe carers their pride, as well as our respect. At present all local authorities have a baseline fee rate which they pay to a residential or nursing home to cover the cost of an individual's care. But why shouldn't local councils instead give a cash payment to relatives, to create an additional incentive to care for family members? This would effectively be both an expansion and a liberalisation of the existing system of direct payments - which at present cannot be paid to a carer in order to fund services for the person they care for. Nor can they be used by those receiving them to pay a spouse or partner. I firmly believe that we should be removing the financial barriers that exist - and making it easier for those who wish to care for their relatives do so. The family is the most important building block of a civilised society. The principle of paying child benefit is one that is long established, it being considered beneficial to society for the government to help people financially when they have children. Why then should the same not be true for those who care for elderly or vulnerable relatives? Inevitably, we come to the multi-billion pound question. How do you pay for it? In many respects this can actually save money. Where a local authority might otherwise be paying several hundred pounds a week for residential care, they could instead be offering a fraction of that to a relative to provide care themselves. And this shouldn't be looked at as trying to provide services on the cheap, or to exploit the good will of those willing to care. On the contrary, it reinforces the deepest principle of the family unit, that we look after our children and one day, they will in return look after us. The elegance of the idea lies in who it helps. It is those who are not wealthy, and who do not have wealthy relatives that they can go to for assistance. It offers a choice to the choiceless, and for their families the extra financial support that makes caring for their relatives a genuine option. According to Carers UK, in 2008 55% of carers were in debt as a result of their caring responsibilities, and 74% struggled to pay essential bills. In a civilised society, it is our duty to ensure that those who do the right thing are not left destitute as a result. Chris Skidmore is the Conservative MP for Kingswood