Official Report 335KB pdf
Item 3 is a round-table session on unpaid carers. The committee has already held a round-table discussion with groups that represent and work with unpaid carers. That session highlighted the huge importance of the issue, which can affect anyone at any time. There are 660,000 unpaid carers in Scotland—a figure that represents one in eight of the population—who save the Scottish economy £7.6 billion. The figures put the issue neatly in perspective and show how important such people are and how unpaid caring could potentially affect everyone.
I am a member of the Scottish Parliament.
I am the team leader for health and social care at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I am an MSP.
I am Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People.
I am an MSP.
I am the director of human resources at the Scottish Court Service.
I am an MSP.
I am the chief inspector of social work.
I am an MSP.
I am the divisional officer at the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
I am an MSP.
The deputy convener is not here, but I have been assured that she will arrive later.
I am happy to do that. As members will note from my submission, my organisation inspects local authority social work services, and we have generally found a reasonably good picture throughout Scotland. In the area of support for carers, however, there is considerable room for improvement. We identify, among the many aspects of work with carers that we examine, those who are more dissatisfied with the support that they receive and who appear to be less well supported than others. That includes, as you mentioned, carers of people with substance misuse problems; carers of people with mental health difficulties, including dementia; and parents and carers of children with disabilities. Those groups give the most negative responses to the surveys that we carry out in every part of Scotland. We survey carers in each local authority area, and those are some of the conclusions that we have drawn—among the many others that are listed in the submission—from the 3,200 responses that we have received over the past three years.
Do you find that if a particular local authority has a good programme, service or strategy for young carers, it will offer such services for carers in general? Or is there a divide?
There are not necessarily good services for carers in general. Young carers are particularly vulnerable, as I am sure that Kathleen Marshall and others will tell you, and as you have probably heard from previous evidence, but we do not find that there is a particularly strong and co-ordinated strategy for carers that covers all ages. It tends to be a little more fragmented in regard to adult carers than it is for young carers. The point of transition is critical—for example, children move from the children's system into the adult system in all sorts of ways, and it is at those points that problems start to emerge within organisations.
Two groups have been highlighted. Are there any other groups that tend to be overlooked and which include people who might not even realise that they are carers?
We should also mention grandparents caring for children with substance-misusing parents; carers in rural areas who, although supported by outreach services, can find access to centralised services far too costly; and black and minority ethnic communities, whose different cultural attitudes to caring might not be dealt with by the services as sensitively as they could be.
What about older carers in general?
There are many more older carers than other types and, in the main, they are more satisfied with the support that they receive. That is not to say that a really strong, co-ordinated approach has been taken in this area, but there is probably more support for older carers and they seem to be happier with the services. Of course, demographic change means that more of the same will not be enough.
Grandparents might be trying to deal with their children's substance abuse as well as caring for their grandchildren. Do they feel that there is a stigma attached to what they have to do? They might not want the community to know what is happening, so they might not access services as readily as other people.
Those who care for people with substance misuse problems can feel stigmatised by the potentially criminal aspects of such behaviour and are concerned about being seen even trying to access such services. For example, when we examined the approach taken by NHS Grampian and its council partners to substance misuse and caring issues, we found that carers in such circumstances felt stigmatised and were more anxious than other people about being seen to access support services. Kathleen Marshall might be able to say something about the other aspects of this issue.
Young carers also feel stigmatised. Indeed, it can be very difficult to identify them, simply because they are not always willing to be identified. After all, it can lead to their being bullied at school. I know that you received a lot of evidence from young carers in March, and I will be able to answer members' questions on that matter.
Is Alexis Jay's basic point that certain groups are having their needs assessed more than others or is it that, having been assessed, some people are more likely than others to get services?
As you might know, the take-up of carer assessments has been very low, despite the fact that the provision has been in place for many years now. Carers do not routinely have their needs assessed. One of the most common recommendations that we make in our reports is that councils must increase the level of carer assessments—the standard response to which, of course, is that such assessments are done as part of the cared-for person's assessment. However, that is not good enough. Most carers organisations want to assert carers' rights to have their needs separately assessed. It is certainly true that most carer assessments are done for those who care for older people, which means that they are more likely to be represented. It is not the only way into the system, but there could certainly be immediate improvements in understanding what individual carers want and need and in responding to that.
I am sorry to keep Alexis Jay on the rack here, but I know that SWIA is a Government body directly responsible to ministers and that it has collected a lot of evidence on delivering social work services. How directly do you work with the local authority social work departments? In your submission, for example, you highlight the percentage of people who feel that their care needs were being met and those who feel otherwise, but does that information have to go all the way through the Government before it gets back to local authorities?
No. Indeed, we have done extensive and intensive work in individual council areas over a number of months. In the course of that work, which has not been completed in all 32 authorities—I believe that we have published 23 reports so far—we compile a report after surveying carers and people who use the service, reading files and carrying out intensive field work with other partners in health care, the police and so on. We debate and finalise the draft report's contents with the council and then send it to ministers for their information, not for their approval. After that, we work with the council on our recommendations and, a year later, we return to check whether they have been implemented.
Many carers are employed and have a very difficult job in juggling home and work life. Moreover, many employees feel stigmatised at work for having to ask for time off. In that respect, the Scottish Court Service has been reasonably successful in making such requests legitimate and ensuring that an individual does not feel stigmatised as a carer. I believe that that is a major factor in addressing this whole issue.
The Scottish Court Service has certainly been held up as a very good model in that respect.
Does COSLA or, indeed, do any local authorities have guidelines, procedures or processes for employees who have caring responsibilities?
As you know, COSLA is also the employers organisation for local government and negotiates terms and conditions for its employees. There is no national framework for dealing with this issue, but certain terms and conditions in the so-called red book relate to carers' leave, unpaid leave and such matters. We set the minimum standards, but I have no information about what councils offer over and above that.
Alexis Jay mentioned the low take-up of carer assessments and outlined how SWIA was working with local authorities and reporting back to ministers. For the benefit of the others around the table, how are the relevant public bodies ensuring that the support required by unpaid carers is being delivered? Do they know about the help that is available from local authorities and are they accessing it?
Carers identify advice and information as almost their top priority in relation to what helps them most—it comes second to practical, hands-on support such as short breaks. Many local authorities have good information and advice services and, particularly in central Scotland, there is well developed welfare rights advice, which is good because there are few things that are more useful to carers than ensuring that they have a decent income, and they need help and advice to ensure that they get that.
We will have a look at what is happening elsewhere a little later in the discussion.
We have been told that limited information is available on black and minority ethnic groups with regard to carers. Can anyone around the table supply more detail than we have at the moment? The challenge involves not only language barriers but cultural difficulties. Would anyone care to talk about that?
In 2005 we surveyed our members and, obviously, touched on black and minority ethnic issues. The research at that time showed clearly that many black and minority ethnic people did not understand the welfare state to start with, and viewed caring for a parent or a child as one of the normal things that they would do as a member of a family.
My question is primarily for COSLA. Last week, we had a lengthy discussion on equal pay and talked about the fact that there is still a long way to go towards ensuring that there is no gender pay gap. Does COSLA have any figures on how many carers are women who are stuck on the lowest level of pay and might benefit the most from properly equalising pay?
I am afraid I do not have that information with me, but I can get it to you if we have it. I head up the health and social care team, but there is a specific employers function in the structure of COSLA. It might have been useful to get someone from that team along today. I will find out whether that information is available and get back to you.
To be honest, that is the answer that I expected; I did not really think that you would have the numbers in your head.
It would have been quite impressive if I had, though.
I would have been very impressed.
I do not need to ask the other questions that I had prepared, as I have got the information that I was after. What has come through is that there is a call for a national helpline and that, perhaps, advice could be given more proactively.
My question is a bit rhetorical. I want to know whether services, not only information, are of a uniformly good standard across Scotland. I understand that that is not the case and that they are patchy. Could we hear more about that? Alexis Jay said that central Scotland is good, that sharing best practice is desirable, that internet advice is fine for those who have access to the internet and that a helpline would be a good idea. If there is good practice, is there a culture of sharing it?
There is not a culture of sharing good practice. I would like to say that there was, but it seems that, regrettably, people do not learn from a different council five miles down the road—do not ask me why. That appears to be the case in England, as well. However, that objective is part of our function. Next year, we will run a conference with carers, part of which will focus on good practice.
Are assessments being done in every local authority? Is every carer that is identified being offered advice?
No. From talking to carers and looking in files, we know that it is far from the case that every carer has their needs assessed. Some people might not wish to have a separate assessment, but it is their right to have one, if they ask for it.
Jane Kennedy, do you want to talk about that?
There is always a difficulty in trying to do what Alexis Jay is talking about. COSLA has a health and wellbeing executive group that is made up of the chairs of the relevant committees in the councils, and we raise those issues in that forum. Further, the strategy of the Scottish Government that we have committed to should provide another way of doing that. We raise issues in the group, but it is difficult to get people to buy into that approach.
Do you raise issues specifically about carers?
We have not dealt with the issue of carers in a huge way, although we have always responded to issues relating to it when we have been asked to. As you know, we are a political lobbying group, and the issue has come up more frequently recently—obviously, the current financial crisis has made the future of unpaid care a bigger issue politically than it was a few years ago—and we are starting to see more activity around it than previously. We are starting to consider the issue with the ministerial steering group on health and community care.
Are round-table forums such as the one that we are conducting helpful in informing that discussion?
Yes.
My first question is for Alexis Jay. Within the inspection process, can you identify whether a local authority is proactively promoting the interests of carers?
I will try to answer your first question; perhaps it is for members of the committee to think about the second one.
Jane Kennedy may wish to talk about the single outcome agreements.
The issue of respite care is covered in the concordat that the councils signed up to, but the single outcome agreements are different for each local authority, and they were put together in different ways—some are long and detailed, whereas some are slightly briefer. However, I would not assume that because outcomes for carers are not explicitly mentioned in each single outcome agreement, they are not implicit in the work of councils. We are in the first year of developing the tool of single outcome agreements, and they will develop over the coming years.
Do you have a feel for whether people in the 32 councils are specifically mentioning carers?
I could not give you information on that.
Has the issue of carers been raised generally?
Many people raise the issue of young carers, as young people tend to feature more in the single outcome agreements than do, for example, older people.
I think that Alexis Jay mentioned that a lot of warm words have been spoken and that there has been a lot of interesting rhetoric. Do local authorities have a statutory obligation to define retrospectively what they have done rather than what they aspire to do?
That is expected in the single outcome agreements, but there is no statutory obligation. Of course, local authority health and social work services are required in law to produce community care plans. They should say what their plans are and how they intend to implement them, but there is no statutory requirement to consider what they have actually done and whether they have done what they set out to do.
The Social Work Inspection Agency could highlight that a local authority was not producing community care plans, but that would not necessarily mean that the local authority would then have to produce them. Would that become an issue only if someone said, "I'm entitled to a community care plan and I'm not getting it"? In other words, would it become an issue only if there was litigation?
You are right that an individual who is denied a community care assessment or a carers assessment could take the matter to judicial review, but that never happens. If we say that we expect there to be an increase in carer assessments, when we follow up an initial inspection we check whether that occurs, but of course organisations such as ours have no enforcement powers. We have a lot of influence, because people do not like negative things about them being made public, but the increases in the number of carers assessments that we seek is still slow in becoming obvious.
Of course, assessment is only the first stage; the next stage is resourcing, which, from what we have heard, is often not available.
I have several pages of examples of good practice, some of which concern individuals. Obviously, I do not want to take up the committee's time by talking about all of them.
Perhaps you could condense them.
The examples are very different. There are specific case examples. Some are to do with particular services. Angus Council's early stage dementia service is mentioned, as is Aberdeenshire Council's forget-me-not club, which is pretty good—carers and cared-for people attend it. There is Inverclyde Council's work with Children in Need, which involves leisure facilities and carers and is aimed at improving family relationships. There is also an example from the Western Isles. I can provide details to the committee.
Perhaps you could explain something particularly good that happens.
I understand from carers organisations that North Lanarkshire Council's awareness-raising training programme for its staff, which probably included its health care staff, was a particularly good development.
That is a good model.
I think that the programme was carried out a couple of years ago. Other local partnerships could embrace and perhaps develop similar programmes. A number of examples of very good practice exist.
North Lanarkshire Council seems to be very good with carers generally, including young carers.
That is correct.
I was going to ask about training for staff. Legislation has been passed and local authorities and employers have various duties, but does the problem lie in people not realising that they are carers? I am picking up on a point that Lawrence Wason made. Perhaps we need something in addition to a national helpline, for example a national media campaign to make people aware of their rights. Lawrence Wason talked about cultural aspects. Older people sometimes feel that it is their duty to look after their sick child. Should there be a national media campaign so that people know that they are carers and know about the services that they can access? Good practice has been mentioned. I hope that there will be joined-up thinking. Obviously, many employers and carers do not know about the good practice that exists. We need a starting point.
On awareness, I would like to talk a little about an initiative in the Scottish Court Service. The initiative was not really organisation led; rather, it was led largely by carers whom we initially brought together around six years ago to consider the fact that the service had a number of people with caring issues. That small group of people quickly set up its own contact team, and it has led initiatives and raised awareness. Probably 20 or 30 people saw themselves as carers initially; we now have a register with 116 staff, representing around 8 per cent of the staff in the organisation, who are categorised as carers and can access benefits from the organisation. A partnership involving the Scottish Court Service, carers and our trade union—the Public and Commercial Services Union—has been driven by those people, which has been one of its strengths. They now run their own conference every two years, and we help to fund it. At that conference, carers and cared-for people come together with external organisations to raise awareness of entitlements and of what can be done to improve policies and benefits for staff.
Clearly, there is a spin-off for the Scottish Court Service in that you retain staff.
Exactly—our turnover is low. We retain staff and attract lots of applications for jobs, even though our salaries are perhaps not at the higher end of the market.
You say that 20 to 30 people started the initiative. Did the others come into the fold because they suddenly realised that they were carers, or did they admit that they were carers, or was it a mixture?
It was a bit of both. Individuals who were carers ran a positive promotional campaign. For me, one of the most positive features was that when we started we had posters with cartoons, but eventually the carers said that they wanted to use photographs of themselves with the people whom they cared for to highlight that they were carers and were proud to be carers. The initiative has changed the attitude of staff members and managers in the organisation, so that caring is seen as positive, rather than negative.
That flexibility is important. That is very encouraging.
I agree that we need the national helpline and a media campaign. However, one action that public authorities can take to deliver support is to ensure that appropriate advocacy arrangements are in place. One phrase that we have long used in the field is that it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Parents will tell you that finding out about the available support and their rights and then pursuing them is a full-time job. Some people just do not have the capacity to do that. There is good practice in, for example, the Govan Law Centre and Independent Special Education Advice (Scotland), which helps parents. ISEA's funding was under threat, although thankfully it has been restored. Some people need help so that they are free to care and do not have to spend time becoming a pseudo-lawyer, pseudo-campaigner or pseudo-advocate. That is critical.
I wonder whether Lawrence Wason would like to comment on anything that he has heard. The trade unions played an important role in delivering what seems to be an excellent model in the Scottish Court Service.
There are various issues and there is some good practice. Three years ago, USDAW embarked on a national parents and carers campaign. At that point, we had three key priorities, which remains the case today. The first, which has not been touched on in depth this morning, is the financial aspect for carers, which ultimately is important. We want to work towards lifting carers out of poverty. Secondly, we want to help carers to remain in or rejoin employment, because if they do not do so it will curtail the opportunity for employers and reduce the field from which they can pick. Thirdly, we want to improve in-work support for carers.
To clarify, that is a reserved matter, is it not?
Yes. We are campaigning nationally, but it is important that I raise the issue in this forum to find out whether the Scottish Government could do anything further down the line.
Feel free to do so.
As I say, our survey indicated that the issue is highly important to our members. That is part of our approach.
While we are on that subject, it might be good to explore the differences between Scotland and other parts of the UK. Malcolm Chisholm has a question on that.
The issue has been touched on. Alexis Jay referred to the national helpline and Lawrence Wason referred to UK dimensions. Quite a lot seems to have happened in England in the past four years. I think—although I am not entirely clear—that most of the measures are specific to England, although some may affect the whole of the UK if they are benefit related. Can Scotland learn lessons from other parts of the UK about helping unpaid carers?
We are aware of various differences in the UK. Some things are statutory in England, but not in Scotland. Can anyone put those issues on the record for us?
In response to an English consultation paper, the UK Government has committed to a review of benefits, pensions and taxation, which is under way and is hugely important to carers. Carers organisations are keen for the review to be supported and encouraged in Scotland and for it to be brought to a conclusion so that carers can benefit.
One issue that you mention in your submission is legislation, particularly in relation to carers assessments. It seems that, in England, account must be taken of whether the carer works, wishes to work or wishes to undertake education. That is important. Another issue is about specific England-only funding streams. Will you comment on those?
Whether such measures should be adopted is worthy of discussion by the committee. The issue of whether a carer wishes to work is important. As we have discussed, we do not have a high level of carer assessment, never mind assessments that take that aspect into account. The care 21 report needs to be followed through in Scotland in more detail. It could be the basis of a perfectly good strategy if the Government pursued its recommendations. I understand that there is a commitment from Government and COSLA to do so.
You mention that in your submission and Jane Kennedy mentioned it in passing. Will one of you clarify exactly how the care 21 recommendations are being taken forward? There is reference to a new strategy being introduced in a couple of years.
At COSLA's August executive group meeting, we agreed a report that states that we will build on the strategy for carers in Scotland, which was published in 1999, and the care 21 report, which was published in 2005, as well as the manifesto pledges and points in the concordat on respite care. We have agreed to update those to form a new carers strategy that is agreed by the Scottish Government and COSLA. Our approach is not just about the care 21 report and it is not external to it; it is about building in the current environment, too.
I agree with Malcolm Chisholm that we should consider the right to work and the other provisions in England. I believe that carers in England and Wales have access to direct payments, whereas those in Scotland do not. Apparently, that access does not affect any other benefits. Will anyone comment on that? Lawrence Wason mentioned the earnings limit of £95. Alexis Jay talked about a review at Westminster, but benefits for carers will not even be considered until 2011 in that review. We seem to have the crazy situation in which the law was changed in 2002 so that people over 65 can access carers payments, but if they get a pension they cannot access them.
Is Alexis Jay or Lawrence Wason aware of the situation?
I am not sure of what the differences are.
Perhaps we can seek further information after the meeting, and see whether someone can clarify the issue.
If people in England and Wales are able to access payments in a way that does not affect the benefits that they get, it should surely be open to Scottish people to do the same. I find it a strange anomaly. I wanted to clarify that point.
Your briefing note from the Scottish Parliament information centre actually gives you good clarification on it.
Thank you.
It confirms the point that you have just made.
Absolutely. We need to look into the matter.
As you know, there is a general problem with the level of take-up of direct payments, and with the support and encouragement that are given to people—or not—in pursuing them. Your point is correct.
That should be looked into.
Do you have a question on the same point, Malcolm?
The issue has perhaps been covered, but it is interesting to try and get to the bottom of it. We need to know about the extent to which direct payments are made to carers in England. The power might exist, and it would be interesting to find out whether it is used and whether it is resulting in any improvement in England.
Yes.
The more I look at the rules and regulations, with the overlapping benefit rules and so on, the more I am concerned that the whole system is in dire and urgent need of a revamp.
To whom is the question directed?
Mostly to Kathleen Marshall.
I imagine that that would be significant, but I do not have an evidence base showing how significant it is. The Princess Royal Trust for Carers might be able to give you more direct evidence on young carers. It sounds like there is a serious gap, but I cannot quote any figures.
I may have misread this, but I am under the impression that if a student receives a student loan, they are not eligible for carers benefits. Can anyone clarify that? It seems strange that someone can be lent money, which obviously they will have to pay back later, yet that money can be counted as if it is a benefit that they do not have to pay back. Can anyone comment on that?
I believe that that is the result of the legislation. It is an anomaly, and it should be changed.
That is my understanding of it.
It is something else for us to highlight.
That certainly seems to be an anomaly. That jumped out at me, too, when I read the SPICe briefing.
So under the legislation help is supposed to be provided, but because the law is interpreted so literally, it is having the opposite effect to that which was intended, and it needs to be re-examined, because effectively it goes over the top.
The problem is not with the law, but with its interpretation. We need authoritative guidance and to build confidence. That would benefit workers, too. If the guidance is not practical and does not make sense, compassionate workers will move young people against the guidance, and if they hurt themselves they will fall outside all sorts of employment protection, which does not help them.
This is not really my field; a different trade union deals with it. However, from a trade union point of view, if the legislation and the guidelines are available, and if somebody, unfortunately, ignores them and incurs an injury, they might find themselves in some difficulty. If the legislation exists, the advice is to comply with it.
So we need clarification, rather than an overzealous interpretation of the law, which has been highlighted as counterproductive—thank you for making that point, Kathleen.
Councils need to be much more flexible in their provision of short breaks and support to allow people to take up these important opportunities. However, there is little evidence that, under the current system, cover is being provided to enable that to happen. Some of these opportunities—for example, getting the chance even to talk to other family members about the cared-for person—relate directly to their caring work, but the situation also means that people are unable to pursue leisure activities, do what they like or have time on their own. The focus seems to be on meeting the cared-for person's needs rather than on ensuring that carers can carry on with their task by giving them support and time on their own to pursue education or leisure opportunities, go to the bingo or the pub or whatever.
Even if they are in employment, many carers have to use their holidays to cope with caring situations. For many years in the civil service, if a person applied for special leave, their holidays would be taken into account in the amount of leave that they were given. On advice from carers, we decided to make an exception for those with caring responsibilities; with their requests, we discount the individual's annual leave on the basis that such leave lets them recuperate, recharge their batteries and get a holiday. I believe that such a move has significantly benefited carers, who have been able to get something like an extra two days off a year for caring reasons.
My comments seem to be directed mostly at Alexis Jay. I assure her that that is not intentional.
That quite complex question is about the commissioning and contracting of services and covers relationships not only with in-house services but with a whole range of private and voluntary providers in a local area. Our reports always look at commissioning and contracting arrangements, but we do not have any detailed evidence on their relationship to the specific increases or decreases that you have highlighted.
I was curious because, wearing a different hat, I have some experience of a case in which a service provider changed and the confidence of both the carer and the cared-for person diminished. They had established and built up a relationship over time, but it was damaged by the bean counters—for want of a better expression—and the need to retender services.
I am aware of your interest in this complex area. There is no doubt that some councils handle it better than others. As you know, councils have the imperative to ensure that they get best value and the most resources for the public money that they spend, but sometimes that rubs up against the quality issues, as you describe. In some areas, things are not well handled and individuals get little notice of a change of provider or carer. That makes a huge difference to the quality of the relationship, and the volume of service can be reduced as well.
I return to Kathleen Marshall's remark that parents might not know the correct lifting technique. Obviously, if a parent is injured, it affects not just their ability to work but their ability to care for the child. What training is available to carers so that they know the correct technique? Are there any statistics on how many carers have sustained injuries that might have been avoided if they knew the correct lifting technique?
I do not have any statistics on that, but when we compiled our report "Handle With Care", the issue was raised not just by parents but by young people who were concerned about their carers' health and wellbeing. Courses on moving and handling are available for carers—I find that strange because, on the one hand, they are told not to do it but, on the other, there are courses available on how to do it.
I presume that the training is not just a matter of teaching someone the correct lifting techniques. They need to learn risk assessment, so that they know when they should and should not attempt to lift the person.
Yes. That knowledge is sadly lacking. The parents to whom we spoke pointed that out themselves. Even in hospitals, staff are sometimes not allowed to lift, so they call in the parents.
So the parents who are not trained in the technique turn up to do things.
They are not trained but, because they are not subject to the guidelines, they are expected to do things. In fact, they might actually do things that are unwise and put themselves at risk in certain situations. However, they do not know that, and they are not supported to know it.
Poverty among carers is obviously a big issue that we must bring to the fore, although everybody knows about it. The problem for the Scottish Parliament is that, although we are aware of problems in the benefits system, it is a reserved matter. The carers allowance is £50.55 a week, but a carer who earns more than £95 a week does not get the allowance. That makes it extraordinarily difficult for a carer who might be desperately keen to get out to work. When they do manage to work, they tend not to get the kind of brilliant support that is apparently available to staff in the Scottish Court Service. Do any of the people round the table, including the trade unionist, know how widespread that kind of support is in other companies or organisations, including the civil service and local authorities? Is the SCS an isolated example in that regard?
There is much better flexibility in the Scottish Government in getting time off than I imagine there is with most private employers. There is a certain amount of support in that regard in the public sector generally. However, such support is certainly not widespread.
Is that the case throughout the civil service?
Support for carers is not widespread throughout UK industry, although there are examples of it. I think that British Telecom has a good reputation for supporting carers.
Can Hugh O'Donnell just nail this issue? We have touched on it and danced around it a bit, but can you pose the question precisely?
Yes, indeed. Given what Alan Swift just said, can Lawrence Wason comment on the private sector's willingness to accommodate or support the needs of carers in relation to flexible working hours and so on?
Yes. We certainly welcome the introduction of the right to request flexible working, but it is clear that it can create obstacles for the carer. It can hamper the ability of the carer to remain in paid work and hamper their access to training and their ability to progress. The time that carers get off is unpaid, which is a financial burden that brings difficulties.
Lawrence Wason has answered the question that I wanted to ask on whether there had been surveys to find out how many carers can get time off. USDAW has obviously done that, but I wonder whether anyone else has. Such research perhaps gives more credence to the idea that we should adopt the English system, in which there is a duty on local authorities to take account of whether a carer wants to work or study. If such a provision were included in the legislation, it would be much easier to examine practices throughout Scotland, not only in local authorities but in the private sector. Examples of good practice have been mentioned. Have studies been conducted aside from the work that USDAW has done?
Not that I am aware of. The issue has been brought to our attention by our membership, because of the sector that we predominantly work in, so we have decided that it is a worthwhile campaign to pursue and that we should seek improvements.
Jane Kennedy can come in before I bring in Hugh O'Donnell, given that this is such a big issue.
I will refer the issue to my colleagues who work in the employers function in COSLA. I do not deal with employment and local government employees.
We would be interested to hear their views.
That is fine.
This point relates more to the issues that have been raised on moving and handling and is less to do with employment. The age profile of our carers is increasing. What steps is COSLA taking to address that fact? How is the fact that an increasing burden is falling on people who are themselves getting older and may be in need of care impacting on social work inspection services and those accessing services?
There is a need for a full-scale examination of the matter. A number of factors make the future of unpaid care slightly less sustainable than it has ever been. For example, the breakdown of family structures means that there are often fewer family members to help to look after relatives. People are living longer and people with certain conditions who would not have survived in the past are now living into old age. There is therefore a bit more of a burden as the older population is increasing.
Our survey asked carers whether they identified themselves as having a disability and we asked them about their age. Of the 2,200 carers from throughout Scotland who responded, more than 30 per cent identified themselves as having a disability or a debilitating illness, which is significant. The majority of those who responded were in the 25 to 59-year-old age group, but more than 450 people in the random sample were aged 75 and over.
The average age in our organisation is mid-40s. People who are caring for elderly parents also often have child care responsibilities.
Thank you for that information. We would be interested in information on the scheme and the Carers UK report. Before we conclude this part of the meeting, I invite everyone briefly to put on record issues that they want to mention as a result of the discussion.
I have had my say. I thank the witnesses for the information that they provided and for the time that they took to compile it.
I will report back to the committee on questions that I could not answer and I will keep you up to date on the development of the carers strategy.
I thank the witnesses for a useful session. We have much to follow up.
On Friday, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child published a report on the UK's progress in implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In the report, the point was made that, as local authorities get more power, they should more explicitly assume the responsibilities under the convention.
I thank the witnesses for a useful session. There is an astonishing range of issues that we could follow up. When Alexis Jay mentioned the SWIA conference, I thought that perhaps the Equal Opportunities Committee could run an event in parallel or afterwards. It is important to push good practice.
I hope that the carers strategy in Scotland will take account of employers. For many employers, it makes good economic sense to be supportive, not to mention the significant good will that that wins them from employees.
I, too, thank the witnesses, who raised many issues that we can follow up. Given that this is the Equal Opportunities Committee, it would be remiss of me not to remind people that 71 per cent of people in receipt of carers allowance in Scotland are women. Women are in the lowest-paid jobs, too. We should consider that.
My final message is that it is important that we secure a new relationship with carers in Scotland, in which we treat them as genuine partners.
We have had a constructive discussion and I thank the witnesses. We are still getting carers on the cheap. That needs to be addressed.
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to attend this meeting. Our supporting parents and carers campaign is a UK campaign and we have a carers week, usually in June. Members and their colleagues are welcome to participate in our campaign.
I thank the witnesses. This has been a tremendous session. There seem to be good opportunities to improve our ability to share good practice to do with both employment and council activity.
We have had an excellent session, which has provided positive issues for us to follow up. The example that the Scottish Court Service gave is encouraging and shows how common sense, flexibility and mutual support can generate economic benefits. I hope that people will be encouraged by that good practice to introduce similar schemes in their businesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—