Official Report 327KB pdf
Welcome to the first meeting of the Equal Opportunities Committee in 2006 and a happy new year to you all. We have apologies from Cathy Peattie, Marlyn Glen and Jamie McGrigor.
I will answer in the first instance, but colleagues might want to chip in after me. Obviously, it is helpful to draw a distinction between the STUC and our affiliated trade unions. The STUC does not interface directly with members in the workplace; that is the role of our affiliates. The STUC's role is to support our affiliates in their wider work.
As a trade union official who represents many people who have impairments or disabilities, I will divide my answer into three.
Not every member of the panel needs to answer every question but, if they wish, they may add to the answers that have been given.
If employers have staff who become disabled in any way—as can happen suddenly, with a click of the fingers—they are not always prepared to consider providing other training or another position for those staff. They would rather make their employees redundant than have the bother of trying to find out what their problems are. Some protection has to be given to people who are already established in their employment so that if anything like that happens, they are given every opportunity to be relocated in the firm.
As a senior representative and equality officer who works at the coalface, as it were, I would expect most employees with X years of employment to benefit from a robust redeployment policy. I do a lot of work on that and access such policies a great deal. I am also a trained trainer in the area of discrimination. It is important to have a culture in which any form of discrimination is unacceptable and in which everyone is treated equally and fairly.
The committee is interested in the feedback that the STUC gets from its disabled members. Will you give us a feel for what percentage of your work in representing people involves disability issues? What issues to do with their employment most concern your disabled members?
It would be difficult to give you a percentage, but perhaps I can give you a flavour of the STUC's activity at the moment. We have four main equalities committees: the youth committee; the women's committee; the black workers committee; and the disabled workers committee. All those committees are resourced as effectively as they can be within the STUC's constraints. It would not be fair to say what percentage of the STUC's activities is devoted to equalities, but it is a high priority for the STUC and all its affiliates. Perhaps colleagues are better placed to answer the second part of the question.
Disabilities that are classified under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 happen rarely, although I have two or three on-going cases.
I work in the national health service and believe that the public sector does not do enough. The public sector should be championing the employment of disabled people because we are meant to represent people. The public sector should lead from the front. Although I do not have the figures that were asked for, I am sure that we could do a lot more in the public sector.
Have individuals come to you with particular issues? Do you get a lot of feedback about the concerns of disabled workers?
I treat people as people, based on what they offer rather than focusing on their disabilities. It is a cultural thing—people look at others and put them in boxes, and that is all wrong. We have to get away from that and change the culture. That is what I hope to do.
Some disabled people worry that when they have to attend hospital or doctor's appointments to make sure that their disability is not getting worse, their employers seem to feel that allowing them time off to attend such appointments is not their problem. That must be addressed. An appointment might come up only once every six months, but people need to keep their appointments.
I was very impressed with the STUC submission. Very often, it is the simple things that make life much easier for disabled people. James O'Rourke mentioned diabetes, and it was suggested in the STUC submission that flexible hours should be arranged to allow people to attend hospital appointments and so forth. Something simple such as that can make all the difference.
How do the STUC and its affiliated members consult disabled members to get from the horse's mouth the particular issues that they face? How do you establish key priorities for your disabled members?
The STUC does that through our disabled workers committee—Jim O'Rourke and Lesley McCallum are members of that committee—and through our disabled workers conference. We had our first annual conference in 2004 and we have just had the 2005 conference.
As well as being on the STUC disabled workers committee, I am one of the two representatives of that committee on the STUC general council. All information is sent to me by electronic mail because I have a screen reader on my computer. I can also get information sent to me in 20pt print. When I go to a meeting, everything is in exact order and I can check the papers that I want to address.
I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and sit on the national committee, which is chaired by Diana Holland. I am also active in the women's movement on disability issues. We have meetings in Eastbourne every year and a portfolio is produced for political lobbying. However, my most important work is at the coalface, with members and colleagues. It is a big learning curve. We keep getting back to culture—if we cannot change the culture, we cannot change much.
That has been a strong message throughout the inquiry.
I should perhaps have declared an interest at the outset. I am a member of the TGWU and the Co-operative Party.
That section of the report refers to work undertaken by Des Loughney, so I will pass over to him for the substantial answer. The contact issue has already begun to be rectified. I sit on the Disability Rights Commission's employability strategy group. We are beginning to make contacts. One of the reasons for establishing the disability structures within the STUC is that they give us a focus for taking forward our work with other organisations. It is our responsibility to make those initial contacts, which we have already begun to do with the Royal National Institute of the Blind and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. It is an on-going process, which I hope will be built on in the coming months and years.
When we were carrying out the research that is referred to in the paper, one of the big surprises—I should have been aware of it—was the lack of contact between the trade union movement and what I call the world of disability. I was surprised at how many specialists on disabilities issues were also trade union members. I talked to disability employment advisers at jobcentres, who were usually members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. I talked to access to work advisers, who were also members of the PCS. I talked to people in the disability units at the universities and the colleges, who are inevitably Unison members. I talked to people in specialist voluntary organisations, who are usually Unison or TGWU members. All those people in professional roles had a vast knowledge of disability issues and practical solutions for tackling them, but when I talked to them they were not feeding that into the trade union and labour movement. I thought that that was a shame. We ought to have a developmental process that encourages the sharing of experiences and allows such people to contribute to the formulation of policy in the movement. Some unions, such as Amicus, talk about disability champions, and the Association of University Teachers Scotland provides a mentoring service for disabled members. Such unions are showing the way forward. I hope that I and others can encourage that process.
Lesley McCallum talked about the public sector leading the way, but there are examples of good and bad practice in all sectors. Would the STUC have the time, the ability or the inclination to supply the committee with examples of the kind of practices that Des Loughney mentioned? Could you direct us to those tribunal cases and perhaps even give us examples of good and bad practice? The public sector should be leading the way but I am not convinced that it always does. What has been said backs that up. What about procurement?
I have no specialist knowledge of that area.
I had assumed that contradictory policies might be involved in that area as well.
I am more than happy to pick up on procurement. I will try to be brief. As coincidence would have it, the draft regulations for implementing the new public sector and utilities procurement directives will today be laid in the Parliament. I understand that the Finance Committee will be the lead committee for the scrutiny of those regulations. We have two main concerns about them, one of which is to do with the process. Procurement is a devolved issue. At the moment, the Executive is simply replicating the Office of Government Commerce regulations, which we do not believe give full force to the additional scope included in the new directives, not only to achieve value for money but to assist in meeting important environmental, social and economic objectives. We have been doing a fair bit of work on that. A number of the important provisions in the new directives on subcontracting, information about taxation and so on have been implemented in Scotland—as in the United Kingdom—on an optional basis. We believe that implementation should be mandatory.
The committee has raised this issue in the past—for example, I raised it in relation to the women's agenda. Although we are in the middle of the inquiry, I suggest that we take a keen interest in the matter, given that it is happening at the moment.
Perhaps I should have said that the directives have to be introduced and transposed into Scottish law by the end of January.
We could take that up with the Finance Committee. We have an interest in the issue. Do you want to come in on the point, Sandra?
Yes. I have two points that I would like to pick up on, if Elaine Smith does not mind. The first is health and safety being used as a means of preventing disabled people from working and from using leisure facilities. That issue has been raised frequently at committee. The second issue is procurement. I believe that other European countries are using the directives for the benefit of disabled people and others. There is no reason why they could not be used in the same way in this country.
I am more than happy to circulate to the committee our lengthy consultation response. It may not be the most interesting document, but the committee is more than welcome to have it.
Thank you; that would be helpful. It would inform the way in which we take forward the issue within our remit.
If I may, I will return to the issue of health and safety. As Elaine Smith said, the committee would be pleased to have any case studies or examples that the STUC can give us. Was the person who was dismissed a wheelchair user when they were first employed or did they become disabled during their working life? We need to be clear on that point.
The person was a wheelchair user at the outset of their employment. The local authority had the best of intentions, but as time went on it began to see problems, which it said were insurmountable. I disagreed, but the person was eventually dismissed.
The trick is to share and disseminate it, is it not?
Yes.
The point is important. That is why I asked whether the STUC could share its knowledge with the committee. The information would be helpful to us.
The disability issue has been taken up only fairly recently. All equalities issues have a higher profile today than they did four or five years ago. Many factors, including political change, have contributed to raising awareness of the issue. The result of the 1997 general election was important; it changed the whole political climate, including the way in which policies are dealt with. A number of milestones have been reached since that time.
Since their inception, the trade unions have led the way in changing workplace practices and policies and conditions for employees. Using the law to do that is important. How can the DDA be used more effectively to improve the situation for employers and the disabled people in their employ? Lesley McCallum made a point about people not being aware of their rights and about employers and service providers not being aware of their responsibilities, including the responsibility to make reasonable adjustments. I think that she used the word "redeployment" when she spoke about changing the workplace. How effective is the DDA?
I could write and say a lot on the subject. However, if I were to say one thing, it would be that a statutory obligation should be placed on public sector organisations to appoint a disabilities officer. I am talking about authorities employing not an equalities officer or a health and safety officer, but a disabilities officer. Trade union lay officers should mirror that work. They should have the right to a reasonable amount of flexibility to work with the disabilities officer in raising awareness and changing how things are done in the workplace. If that were to happen in the public sector, we would create two resources: a network of disabilities officers and a network of specialised trade union officials. That would be a major step forward.
If I understand the situation correctly, trade union officials who deal with health and safety are entitled to time to do that. Is that correct? Are you suggesting that a similar situation should be created for trade union lay officers who deal with disability issues?
Yes. The Scottish Parliament could legislate to create disabilities officers in the public sector and to place an obligation on employers to provide properly trained lay people with the facilities and time that they require.
I want to raise two additional points: resources for the public sector and, of course, Crown immunity.
As a disabled person who was involved in health and safety and who worked in the Blindcraft factory in Glasgow, I say that disability should be taken into consideration along with the health and safety of able-bodied employees. The employer's book of standards should ensure that everybody is looked after. If fire alarms go off, there should be somebody to assist anybody who is in a wheelchair and ensure that they get clear of the building.
Paragraph 4.1 of the excellent submission from the STUC mentions research that the Edinburgh Trades Union Council undertook into how trade unions as employers, organisations and health and safety bodies could improve their services to disabled people. The following paragraph also mentions that the STUC might not have enough resources to implement the report's recommendations. Is that report available to the committee or the general public?
It will be, but we are still finishing off the full report.
I was going to ask about the timescale, as the research was undertaken in 2004. Will the committee be able to get a copy of the report when it is available?
Do you know when it will be published?
We are finishing off the writing at present.
So it is a work in progress. Will it be published fairly shortly?
I would say that it will be published within a couple of months.
It would be useful to keep an eye out for that.
In evidence, we have heard that employers are unsure of employing disabled people for a variety of reasons, including a fear of the costs that are involved, the level of training that is required or the risk that will be involved if things do not work out. How does the STUC assist employers to overcome those issues and demonstrate the business case for employing disabled people?
In my experience, if employers can be convinced that, with reasonable adjustments or support from access to work, a disabled person can achieve 100 per cent, some are willing to go along with that. If one of our members is unemployed and disabled but I think that they could get back to work, we talk to potential employers, make them aware of all the support that is available and try to convince them that the person can work at 100 per cent. That is part of my job. Some employers will go along with that, but very few employers will employ people who cannot achieve 100 per cent. There is a huge barrier to employing a person who can work at only 80 per cent even with reasonable adjustments. It is difficult to think of a solution to that because, if an employer is taking on someone, they want them to work at 100 per cent and do not want to be faced with extra costs that they think might be incurred in supporting people at work.
There is quite a lot to change.
Are there any financial inducements for employers to employ disabled people?
There are inducements through access to work and other schemes, but some employers have told me that it is not about the money. If a disabled person can work at 100 per cent with financial support, a door is open for that to happen but, even with financial support, employers find it of doubtful use to employ someone who can work at only 75 or 80 per cent. It is for society as a whole to decide whether we are prepared to subsidise employers to allow that to happen. It would mean subsidising not only the employee, but the support and back-up that the employer can provide. It would be possible, but it would cost money.
We might hear more about that when we speak to the next panel of witnesses, who represent the employment side of the equation. As Lesley McCallum said, much of the problem comes down to attitudes. Frances Curran's question follows neatly on from that.
We have taken a lot of evidence in the disability inquiry, and I find Des Loughney's evidence an interesting contrast to what we have heard in other parts of the inquiry. Lesley McCallum mentioned the need for cultural change; she mentioned the bullying and harassment awareness sessions called "the odd one out", which Pace Theatre Company ran. We have been told that staff training in disability equality is seen as a way of combating negative attitudes towards disabled people. Do you agree with that assumption? What other ways are there of combating negative attitudes towards disabled people?
My biggest problem is with mental health issues, perhaps because I was a mental health nurse in a previous life. There is tremendous ignorance about mental health issues. The most difficult part of my job is speaking to managers about people who have been in work but have become acutely mentally ill, or about those for whom stress and anxiety have led to other mental illness. That is difficult because people cannot understand why an employee has become mentally ill; they cannot catch on. There have been great campaigns recently, and I hope that that work will continue.
What ways are there, besides disability training, of combating negative attitudes towards disabled people in the workplace?
I have a great problem with ticking boxes; I am not a person who does that. If an organisation stands up and says that it will sign up to something, it looks great on paper, which is fine, but I expect the organisation to live that commitment. I expect the person at the very top—the chief executive—to say exactly what the organisation is doing, not to say that, because they have ticked the box, they are disability friendly, can put the matter aside and do not have to monitor their performance. I am not saying that that is what goes on, but I want the person at the top to state that the organisation is a zero-tolerance area and that nobody will be treated less favourably, which is the law.
I would like to make a couple of general points about staff training. They are entirely anecdotal, but they have been fed back to me by a number of people who feel that some of the staff training that is being implemented can be counterproductive when it comes to equalities work in general. People often feel that they are dragged into a room and told that they are anti-this, that and the other thing, perhaps because they are not using the appropriate language; that can be quite self-defeating, because they do not come away enthused about what other people can offer in the workplace. They feel that it is all about them being told, for a variety of reasons, that they are bad people. A number of people are working on more positive staff training programmes. There is a disability theatre company in the STUC building called Birds of Paradise, and the main focus of its work at the moment is on developing staff training programmes using theatre as the medium. It tries to keep the training positive by focusing on what disabled people can bring to the workplace.
The most difficult cases that I deal with concern mental health disabilities. In my experience, there are two critical areas. Someone could be off ill with depression or schizophrenia and could be completely incapable of work. However, they could be almost recovered and feeling 95 per cent better, and their doctors or other medical people might think that what would aid their recovery is a reintroduction into the world of work. However, a phased return to work involves quite complex negotiations and a bit of enlightenment among fellow workers as well as among HR and management. It is common for people to return to work after an illness, whether physical or mental, therefore training in that area is critical.
I would like to follow on from the point that Lesley McCallum made and address my next question to her. You said that people duck under their desks as you approach. When you approach those people, you need to have a lot of confidence in how you will win them round to the issues that you want to raise. To what extent is equality training available, and how do your affiliated trade unions provide that training for their reps? Is there training in the workplace for HR, for management or for line managers that corresponds to what the trade unions are doing?
I am quite lucky, because I come from an enlightened NHS organisation in Tayside, where I did a lot of my training. I am a trainer for training on race and disability, so I am allowed to go out and train people in the workplace. It is not like a trade union person going into the workplace; I go in as part of the team that trains people, which is good.
What makes people defensive? What are the main reasons why people are defensive as you approach their office and what are their main fears?
I said that rather flippantly, of course, but the thing is that I do not give up. That is probably what it is; I just do not take no for an answer. If somebody can do 85 per cent of a job, I do not want to hear excuses. I want the management to do what they can. Sometimes the solution is simple, such as putting somebody on the ground floor. It is not rocket science. As Jimmy O'Rourke said, it might simply be a matter of taking the stairs out of their job. Sometimes the solution does not even have a monetary impact. It is just a question of getting people to think creatively, but a large part of the problem is that people do not think.
People have to talk to other people, not over their heads but looking them in the eye and talking to them as equals. That is important, and I am sure that Lesley McCallum would agree with that. How many times have you found that, in workplaces or elsewhere, people speak over the heads of other people? I remember a case in London, when we were trying to go into the General Federation of Trade Unions and one of our committee members was in a wheelchair and had to go upstairs. The doorman was talking over that person's head saying, "Well, what can we do?" and he said, "I'm down here. Look at me. Speak to me." That is what people want. They want somebody to recognise that they have a problem and to try to sort it out. It is as simple as that.
We have heard evidence that people have certain attitudes towards particular disabilities and that there is a clear perception that people with certain disabilities are more employable than others and are employed more quickly. What are your views of such perceptions? Do you come across them quite a lot? What can you do about the fact that people with certain disabilities and impairments seem to be perceived as more readily employable than others?
Two examples struck me when I was doing the research. One involved a young woman who was a chemistry student at the University of Edinburgh. She had a condition that meant that she used a wheelchair. She graduated as a chemist after four years, then applied for a job. She tried for three years between 1998 and 2001 to get a job in her profession, but found it impossible. She works now as a disability rights officer. She said that she applied for hundreds of jobs, but no one would employ her because no one believed that she could work in a laboratory. Even though she produced certificates from the University of Edinburgh that said that, for four years, she had worked for extensive periods in laboratories, no employer would believe her.
If an employer is really disability minded and wants to employ a disabled person, that person can be trained to do a job. I have an example that involves a young lad with learning difficulties who came to work with us. When he came in we were looking to assess him so we put him on the shop floor. He had full sight and was carrying beds down to the tape edger, but he was getting exasperated because there were about 10 people on the benches making the mattresses who were shouting and all the rest of it. He came into the office and the chargehand came in with him. She said to me, "Look, let me take him to the two tape edgers. He can bag the stuff and put it on pallets and we'll see how he settles down." The lad came complaining to us again a week later. He said that one of the tape edgers was always going for a smoke and that he did not have enough work to do. However, that was about 10 years ago and that lad is still working away in the factory. He works a border machine now, running borders for the mattresses.
That is a useful point—thanks. That leads in quite nicely to Marilyn Livingstone.
I declare an interest as a member of the Co-operative Party, of Unison and of the Educational Institute of Scotland.
As a trade union official, I deal more often with what is called the disability of age, to which I referred earlier. There is an issue about people entering work and being at the bottom level because of disability, but as a trade union officer it is far more common for me to deal with disabilities—such as heart problems and back problems—that arise when people are in their 40s and 50s. Such issues usually involve people who have worked for some time in a local authority, a bank or wherever and who have deteriorating conditions, which means that they are not able to perform as they used to do. That causes resentment among other staff and management because, for example, a person with such a condition is no longer a team player. We have to start dealing with such issues—they are by far the biggest problem or challenge that I have.
Do Lesley McCallum or James O'Rourke have anything to say on that?
None of us can do everything and I find it utterly amazing that we always expect disabled people to do everything. If there was a case in which a disabled person was being treated less favourably, I would take it through the route that we used for equal pay. I would ensure that I built the case on whether the person had been treated less favourably. I would get all my facts together and get my percentages and everything. I would build my case through the equality route to ensure that the disabled person was not being disadvantaged. Again, it is a cultural thing. Why should anybody who appears—I stress "appears"—to be less advantaged be paid less or be in a lesser job? It is obscene to do that and I would not for one moment expect it in any workplace. It would be appalling if it happened and I would be the first one to make a robust case against it.
I agree with that. Everybody should be treated as equals. I have seen men and women who are totally blind using high-powered air guns and they can use them every bit as well as people in Stoddard's or other places. In 1967-68, our union—the National League of the Blind and Disabled—achieved equal pay for men and women. We were one of the first trade unions in this country to achieve that in supportive employment. Everybody should start off equal and should be assessed from that position. People should not start out at lower grades because they are disabled.
Following that, I am interested in the support that is currently available to disabled people. We have taken a lot of evidence across the country from many different groups, ranging from groups that deal with physical disabilities to groups that deal with mental health issues. One of the issues that has arisen is the support that disabled people get from different organisations, such as Jobcentre Plus, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Careers Scotland, particularly to get from school and from further and higher education into paid employment. There are schemes such as access to work, modern apprenticeships and pathways to work. What is your experience of those and how effective do you think they are? I am interested in their flexibility and in how person-focused they are. I know that that is quite a difficult question.
Who would like to start with that one?
Marilyn Livingstone talked about Jobcentre Plus and all the rest of it. Funnily enough, we formed a charity just over a year ago to try to create for registered blind and partially sighted people whose mental health is good a centre of excellence to get them back into work. About 83 per cent of visually impaired people in the employable bracket cannot get into employment.
In October, the STUC in Edinburgh agreed to work with the City of Edinburgh Council on an employability project as part of its wider work on social inclusion. Some people with disabilities have been off work for a long time; the project will assist them to get back into the world of work. Although the project has been running for only a few months, certain themes are emerging. For example, many people—probably hundreds—in Edinburgh are employed in helping other people get back into work. One of the first tasks for trade union officials is to train those people to deal with workplace issues that they may not have experienced.
I will briefly touch on the three programmes that Marilyn Livingstone mentioned. It is fair to say that we look on access to work and pathways to work as being very positive programmes, although there has been a lot of anecdotal feedback about access to work being quite slow and cumbersome, with support not being available in the workplace when a person starts a job. However, overall, it is a positive development.
I agree. I am particularly interested in how modern apprenticeships are helping disabled young people. It is a national scheme and we have to ask how it is working across the country. If you have done any research on the programmes and if you know what is working well, it would be good if you could share the research with us. I would be very interested.
A well-reported problem has been that of young people not seeing programmes through. We believe that that usually happens because the pay is low and people can get more money by working in other places. However, working in those other places may not be to people's benefit in the long run, so rates of pay have to be addressed. I agree that it would be interesting to analyse the programmes.
I am particularly interested in flexibility. As Lesley McCallum said, we cannot put everyone in the same box and say that they will be job-ready in six weeks. People are individuals.
We will be starting a health academy in Tayside later this year, on which I was going to bring a briefing paper with me, but I did not receive it in time because of the Christmas holiday. I do not like using the word "deprived", so I will say that we are working in areas where many families have not been in full-time employment for many generations. The academy will target people who might not consider coming into the health service. I mean the whole health service—I am not talking only about clinicians, but about porters, domestics and so on. The NHS has had funding for the work and I would like to be involved in it. It could be a great step forward; what we are trying to achieve is new and—dare I say it?—revolutionary. We will be going out to areas that are not so fashionable, shall we say, and bringing people into the NHS. I hope that there will be access for people who might not have been considering that. I am excited about the work and, as I say, I had hoped to have a briefing paper on it. I hope that the work will be a gateway for people.
We would be grateful to receive that paper when it is ready. That would be useful.
A national Disability Employment Advisory Committee has been established at Westminster; Sally Witcher, who lives in Edinburgh, is the chair. I do not know about all the work of the committee, but there are trade union representatives on it. It may be that a similar body could work in Scotland; the Equal Opportunities Committee may want to look into the advisory committee's remit and workload. I am sure that Sally and the other Scots on the committee could inform you of its work.
Is that committee effective?
I think that its members were appointed by a minister specifically to offer advice on changes. You would have to ask the Westminster Government how useful the feedback has been. However, I understand that it has been effective.
Are you asking about a Scottish body?
Yes—although perhaps one that is more than an advisory body.
The STUC has not had the opportunity to discuss that, but it sounds like an idea that we could support and would like to be involved in.
I get a wee bit jittery when I hear about strategic planning and strategic bodies because I think that they sometimes forget to ask the folk who are actually going through things. I will support any initiative that helps, but I make a plea to ensure, please, that you are not just asking folk whether something is being done and accepting the answer. Please talk to the people who are at the grass roots, and to disabled people. Folk in the Isle of Lewis do not need what people in central Glasgow need and vice versa. People need different things, but we sometimes presume that we speak for other folk. I will support anything that helps—whether it is strategic management or whether it is operational—as long as it empowers people at the coalface to become part of the procedure.
That is a useful pointer.
We have to start at the beginning when the person is trying to get into employment, and we must ensure that people can advise them on the benefits situation. Many disabled people are shy about going into employment because they think that they might lose out on benefits if it does not work out. If the person needs to use the access to work programme, assistance must be in place when they start the job—not after a fortnight, two months or longer, as sometimes happens.
I thank you all for coming along this morning and for giving us so much of your time. The professional knowledge and expertise that you have shared with us are useful. Do you want to make any brief comments before we terminate the session?
We are more than happy to provide the committee with a response on the Executive's recent consultation on procurement directives. It might also be helpful if I circulate the resolutions that were adopted by our 2005 disabled workers conference.
Thank you.
The final thing that I would like to mention is that, later this month, we will start for the first time to negotiate with employers and union members about partnership work in equalities and disability. We hope to have half a dozen partnerships, which will focus on specific matters and raise awareness. There are many opportunities for joint working. We are at an early stage, but I hope that by the end of this year or early next year we will be able to show the committee and others the agreements that have been reached. Those agreements might be fairly modest—for example, there might be an agreement that a shop steward can spend a half day per week working on disability and equality issues—but if small steps are taken in many organisations, that will produce real progress.
James, do you want to add anything?
No—I have said everything I want to say.
Thank you very much for your contribution.
We get too hung up on folks' disabilities and we do not think about their abilities.
That is a good point on which to end. I thank the witnesses again for their input, which is much appreciated.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our second panel of witnesses. Paul Newman is from the Employers Forum on Disability, Niall Stuart and Andy Willox are from the Federation of Small Businesses, Howard McKenzie is from the Institute of Directors and Roger Horam is from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Thank you very much for coming, gentlemen. I apologise for keeping you a bit longer than we had expected to do before taking your evidence.
I will tell the committee a little bit about the forum. We have about 400 employer members, who employ 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the United Kingdom's working population. Just under 25 per cent of our members have activities that are centred on or take place in Scotland. To achieve focus in particular areas, we have certain networks that meet to consider issues of common interest.
Thank you. That is useful. I was going to ask you about the take-up of information by non-members, but that take-up seems to be quite healthy.
Yes. Non-members can come to our network meetings. We see their being able to do so as a marketing opportunity and an opportunity to get information out there.
Of course. There can be mutual benefits.
Absolutely.
Such benefits are always a good thing.
I want to ask about barriers to employing disabled people. Most members of this panel listened to the questions that we asked the previous panel and their evidence. From that and from evidence that we have taken previously, it is clear that employers can for a variety reasons be unsure about employing disabled people. Those reasons include the fear of the costs that are involved and the level of training that is required, possible negative attitudes towards disabled people among colleagues and the risks if things do not work out. What barriers do you think employers face in employing disabled people?
We would simply reinforce what the committee has been told so far. There are multiple and complex barriers to employing disabled people, which is why we discuss the matter constantly. Those barriers interact, which is why the problem is so difficult to solve.
Are the barriers that you mentioned real or perceived? I ask that question partly because the Confederation of British Industry's submission states:
The barriers are both real and perceived. That takes us back to a point that I made earlier—employers, like the general population, do not understand all the different types of disability and all the types of need that exist. In the past hour, we have heard about dyslexia, mental health, people in wheelchairs and visually impaired people. Small employers do not understand all the different things that they need to do to equip a workplace for an individual who has any of those impairments or disabilities.
You are saying that direct contact with employers is crucial.
Yes.
You talk about employers not understanding different types of disability. Overall, about 50 per cent of the disabled population is in employment. However, across Britain only 6 per cent of people with autism are in full-time employment. The National Autistic Society has an employment initiative that is focused on speaking to employers and providing them with support. Should the Scottish Executive and Parliament take that kind of approach with all employers?
We ran a series of seminars with the Disability Rights Commission and were disappointed by the turnout at them. The DRC is great at putting on conferences that are attended by 300 people, but very few delegates are taking a day away from their private business to hear about disability. Employers are interested in taking on people who can help their business, so we need to sell to them individuals who are looking for work, training or supported work placements. If we talk to them about disability, they will say, "That's not really what we do. We make or sell things, and we're looking for someone who can help us do that." We have to approach employers in a very direct and tangible way.
Ironically, one barrier has been the inclusion of the reasonable adjustment process in the DDA. That has worried many employers. I represent the Institute of Directors, but my day job is as principal of a college. The difficulty with the reasonable-adjustment process is that many human resources people use that as an issue for people in employment. There are considerable risks that people will lose employment as a result.
If you do not mind, I would like to ask you about something that one of my colleagues intended to consider later. Given what you have said, do you think that a national framework to support disabled people into, and to sustain them in, employment would be useful?
It would be useful provided that it did something and did not just wander around the place.
We should not just write a national framework and put it in a drawer.
Yes. We should end up with someone doing exactly what Niall Stuart suggested; we should approach employers. If I put a job advert in The Scotsman, I am approached by a series of agencies offering people whom they have on their books. Why cannot we have an employment agency that asks employers whether they have thought about employing a person who uses a wheelchair or who has another disability to work in reception for them? There is no reason why they should not employ such people. The agency could tell employers what reasonable adjustments would be needed and it could say whether grants are available. That would be useful. A national framework would have to do what I have suggested, instead of just being a strategic approach that merely talks about the problem. There are already too many committees and initiatives and we do not need an initiative on initiatives.
I endorse both those statements. When one speaks to the people who are involved in this work—the area-based intermediaries who assist people into employment—they say that they struggle to know what is available and what it is all about. If they are struggling, the man on the street, especially at SME level, is really going to struggle.
We heard from the previous panel that that is an issue. Obviously, a national framework should address it, too.
We also have to think about the Scottish Executive's employability framework. The two cannot sit separately; they will have to overlap.
One of the interesting things that has come out of the work that we have been doing over the past two years is that we now look at the barriers from the other side of the fence, so to speak. We asked ourselves why we do not look at the disabled people who are in employment. I was knocked sideways when I realised that one in eight people in work have a disability as defined by the DDA—more than 12.5 per cent of employees have disabilities. The labour force survey reveals an enormous amount of information about what disabled people can do.
I agree with almost all that has been said. As a UK organisation that has about 190,000 members, of whom about 19,000 are in Scotland, the FSB has been trying to raise awareness of the issue through our newsletters, monthly magazines and website, including by means of website links to organisations such as the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. It has not been easy, though: many of our members simply do not read the stuff we give them. Many of their organisations are very small and some are located in very remote rural areas, including island areas. It is not easy to get the message out.
This relates to one of the issues the previous panel discussed. Colleges and universities are quite good at dealing with disability because it is part of our mission. If we were not, you could probably drag us before a committee and ask us why we were not. It is part of our job.
I will pick up on the point about the national scheme.
I have a couple of questions that I was going to ask later, but they might fit in here. They relate to pathways to work, as well as to access to work.
The big problem for our members, which typically have four or five employees, is that they do not know where to go for advice or assistance. The Disability Rights Commission offers advice to employers, but there is still a nervousness among employers about asking the DRC in case it starts asking them awkward questions about how they recruit and support people in employment.
One of the issues is that some agencies start by asking to see a business's equal opportunities policy, which small businesses do not necessarily have. The bureaucratic process is not supportive, so small businesses do not ask for help. It is as simple as that. They really want to be able to say, "I have an issue that I don't know how to deal with. Somebody come and tell me what I'm supposed to do to make it better or to get me over it."
On the pathways for getting people into employment, some agencies are working too close to those whom it is easy to get into employment. Agencies such as Scottish Enterprise want to work at that end, to get the quick wins. The people further down the line, or the pathway, are important. They are the ones with whom the agencies do not work so easily; agencies work better with the ones who are closer to employment anyway.
That is quite a worry.
I sat on the welfare to work task force. The point about quick wins is worth making. There are quick wins, but by going for them first, things become depleted. It is better to work the other way and let the system work itself.
Is that what you mean by "compliance", which came up a lot in your report; compliance with the DDA rather than compliance with the legislation? You do not like too much legislation. I wonder whether it would be easier to have a one-stop shop where people can access information for small businesses.
At the risk of being contradictory, can I say that the advantage of having a national service is that it is a brand that people recognise and they know to go there for advice. At the moment, people are very unsure, as many organisations do slightly different things.
Paul Newman said that we should ask what people's capabilities are. Andy Willox said that in his workplace the best person for the job was chosen. Several people nodded in response to that. I am interested in that, because if the issue is about people presenting their capabilities and about finding the best person for the job, what are the questions about disability on an application form for and what are people being asked to reveal in a CV?
Colleges have to ask candidates whether they have a disability and, if they do, to describe what it is because the Scottish Executive monitors the process. We also have to ask candidates to tick a series of boxes on a standard form, stating whether they are a student or an employee. We have to do that as part of our funding recognition. It does not help very much. Other employers may or may not ask, depending on their particular activity, but we are forced to do so.
I will not sound so posh, because I sometimes do not understand the complexities of interviews and application forms.
I noticed that members declared their interests when they asked questions, so I suppose that I had better declare my background: I am an HR director.
Small businesses recruit in highly informal ways. They often operate by word of mouth or by putting a notice in the window. Small businesses can be the best employers of disabled people. In some cases, they are extremely flexible and make significant alterations to the recruitment process to give a disabled person an opportunity. On the other hand, small businesses are often the worst employers of people with a disability.
How do your organisations support your members, as employers, to employ, and sustain the employment of, disabled people and to maintain that employment if a person's circumstances change? Do you encourage your members to go beyond the requirement to provide reasonable adjustments? Do you have any examples of good practice to share with the committee?
As we have already discussed, we have done a lot of work with the DRC and we mail our members and put updates in our newsletters to try to make them aware of where they can get advice and support.
About a year ago, someone asked me, "Why wasn't I told about this Disability Discrimination Act 1995 thing?" He was a member and had probably simply not looked at the website or taken the brochures out of the plastic. Since the late 1990s, around 20 or so of our newletters, particularly those that were published in the run-up to last year, contained something about the DDA. The edition of our magazine that came out yesterday had nothing about the DDA in it, but it had a bit about the free online ACAS learning course for bullying and harassment. Put together, our magazines are like an encyclopaedia. They might not be bed-time reading but they contain important information for our members. We try to keep it short and use bullet points as we try to raise awareness of the issues among our members. We expect that our members will be better informed about these issues than other businesses will be, but, especially in rural areas, the information rolls out to other local businesses, trade organisations and so on.
Having knocked the public sector slightly, I will now give some examples of good practice in the Scottish public sector. I do not know whether you are aware of the good work that North Lanarkshire is doing to support people with learning disabilities and mental health problems in terms of vocational profiling, coaching and so on. Strathclyde police has also addressed the issue of employing people with disabilities. It has been running a programme with Jobcentre Plus or the Wise Group, which has resulted in people getting jobs with the police.
Andy Willox made the point that membership organisations can get through only to their members. We have done some work on the issue—there are about 29 membership organisations for employers in Scotland plus some sectoral ones. We also have Scottish Enterprise, which, through programmes such as the business gateway, works with many businesses, but only a proportion of them. The issue is how we get information to everybody. We must rely on every organisation taking its share of that work. We also have organisations that split, such as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, which is an umbrella organisation within which each chamber works autonomously. That is different from the FSB, which is more Scotland-wide and which gives out information to its members. The fact that we have a real mishmash of organisations is difficult. I suppose that I include my organisation among those that are not operating as well as they could do, although some chambers operate very well.
As a business organisation, supporting disabled people is a journey that we are on; it is not something that we have to do and then leave. In the United Kingdom, we recruited more than 36,000 new members last year, many of whom are self-employed, although they may start employing people down the line. We must constantly remind our members of their responsibilities. Self-employed people or family businesses in which two or three family members work may start employing other people. We are on a journey. We can use only the tools that we have, but we will use them.
I want to tie together some of what has been said so far. In the evidence that we have had throughout our inquiry and in our consultation exercises, we have heard that disabled people want a seamless transition between school, college or university and employment, and that people's experience is that that is not being achieved. Do you have any ideas on how that could be achieved and on how organisations such as the FSB could assist their members to achieve it?
Along with many of my colleagues, I employ a lot of people from school. To leave the disability issue aside for a minute, I interview many people who have not been to school or who have been at school one day a week during secondary 2 and S3. If that problem was sorted out, the disability part of what you ask would sort itself out. The problem is more general than just the seamless transition to work for disabled people. There is a secondary education issue that does not help us when we try to find people at the unskilled or lower skilled end and get them into work.
That is interesting.
We are stunned by that. How do people get access to you to be interviewed or considered for a job? Is it through Jobcentre Plus?
It is normally through the Jobcentre and the new deal. We constantly employ through the Jobcentre. Many small businesses, especially in the property maintenance sector, are constantly looking for people.
Have they usually been through a preparation for work course before that? Sorry, I know that we should be discussing disability.
To move away from the disability issue, there is a more general problem. If it was sorted out, that would help to address the problem that I was asked about.
I am probably in a reasonable position to say something about the issue that Andy Willox has raised, as we screen all our students for core skills. About a third of our students come from various different stages of the school-leaving process, but about 70 per cent of them do not have the core skills for which they are certificated. Different groups of school leavers have different issues—including behaviour, work ethic, attendance, core skills and reading and writing ability—depending on when they left the school system. The further up the system they are when they leave, the better. Students who have attended a preparation for work course in a college are considerably more employable. I notice that Andy Willox is nodding in agreement. That transition is difficult, but we are trying to tackle that.
Is truancy a huge issue among the young people whom you employ? That question is particularly for Andy Willox.
Truancy is obviously an issue, as the people whom I interview tell me quite openly what they have done during the previous six to 18 months. If my child was truanting, I would be worried about what they were doing during the other four days if they attended school only one day a week. We have tried to say this to all the right people for years now. We need people who have the right attitude and soft skills and who have reading and writing skills—or literacy and numeracy as they are called. Such skills seem to be in short supply among many of the people we see when we are trying to recruit.
In previous evidence sessions, the committee has heard that there is a perception that people with certain impairments find work more easily than others. In other words, employers are more willing to take on some disabled people than others. Will you comment on that perception?
You are absolutely right. Employers have the perception that some disabilities are more disabling than others or that people with certain disabilities have less capability than others. However, the same idea holds true for issues other than disability. For example, employers might have certain perceptions or prejudices depending on whether the candidate is a man or a woman or is old or young. If they want an experienced solicitor, they might choose someone who is older rather than the youngest-looking person. Such perceptions are already present in our society.
I have said a lot about small employers' inability to cope with the different needs associated with the variety of disabilities. However, John Swinburne is undoubtedly right to say that more visible disabilities provoke stronger reactions in employers, who immediately begin to think of all the problems that they might create.
On the point about agencies such as Scottish Enterprise and so on, I believe that Elaine Smith mentioned the National Autistic Society. People with autism have great strengths such as the ability to concentrate. Would it help employers if such groups were able to explain to your organisations the various positive influences that that illness or disability—if you want to call it that—might have for your profession? Might that come under the one-stop shop idea?
As I have said all the way through this evidence session, there is no substitute for matching individuals with disabilities to vacancies and for approaching employers directly. The organisations that you have mentioned could speak to Andy Willox or me; however, we would still have the job of speaking to our members about the matter. It would be far more effective to concentrate on employers who want to recruit people and who have vacancies that are suitable.
That said, any remaining uncertainty can be minimised by having an expert organisation on hand to give help when it is needed. For example, I know of someone who, after employing an autistic person, put in place arrangements to take them home every day and so on. Everything was fine until, one day, the employee went berserk at a meeting because his routine had been knocked sideways. At that moment, the employer was able to consult an expert resource, who came up with a very practical solution to the problem. The small employer was still happy with the person's contribution.
The most precious commodity for any small business is time. If it takes time to change the workplace and working practices, to contact people for advice and to chase up funding, that will ultimately influence the decisions that small business owners make. Time is a luxury for small businesses, as I know it is for members and their small offices. Things have to be made easy for employers, as they simply do not have the luxury of time to go around chasing different agencies for different kinds of advice and different pots of money.
Alongside what John Swinburne asked about, there is sometimes a big difference between big and small businesses. I listened to some of the experts saying things about having a dedicated person on site. The health and safety person might have 100 things to do anyhow and so cannot be given the job, but for a small businessperson, all of that is their job. I sometimes listen to conversations and cannot think of any of our 19,000 members in Scotland who work in the relevant field. The effect on Standard Life, with its 800 employees, of having 400 employees off today would be the same as the effect on a small business with two employees of having one person off. Therefore, yes, the issue is more difficult, as is finding the expertise. If a business wants a new member to join a department that already has 50 people, that is a lot more simple than someone with three employees expanding their business to take on a fourth employee. There are different fears and challenges for small businesses.
The Prime Minister's strategy unit report "Improving the life chances of disabled people" recommends that employers should lead a campaign of awareness to promote the benefits of employing disabled people. Do you know whether that recommendation is being implemented in Scotland? Are you involved in that? Incidentally, your submission comments on the fact that disabled people are more liable to come to their work and stay at their work and have less absenteeism than people without disabilities. I find that quite interesting.
On your second point, because I have been in the position of employing people with disabilities, I can say that I think that you are right in one sense and neutral in another sense. Whoever you are talking about, they are subject to getting a cold, flu or something else, so I do not think that there is any difference there. However, what you say about disabled people's dedication to the job is true. There are differences health-wise and given different relaxations and things, but there is evidence on the ground of disabled people's dedication.
Perhaps it is not about promoting awareness of the benefits, which is what we have been talking about. What employers are really after is the best worker, and perhaps we should be trying to tell them that that person might have a disability—rather than the other way round, if you see what I mean.
I have a quick question, again about attitudes. What changes attitudes and what works? Do you have access to disability awareness training? I want to check that I heard correctly. I think that you said at the beginning of your evidence that the DDA was a problem for attitudes and people who are already in the workplace—it is a negative influence rather than a positive influence.
I believe that, overall, the DDA has not had as positive an influence as it was designed to have. It has made people concentrate on and look a lot harder at disability issues, which is partly what it was designed to do. However, they have looked and have said, "Oh—we've got to make reasonable adjustments. What's reasonable? I don't know. Oh dear." As Niall Stuart just said, time is the commodity that we are all trading in. In some cases, that has probably made people lose employment. Rather than make the reasonable adjustment, their employers have pushed them out of employment.
Will that change in the longer term? The DDA has been brought to people's awareness only in the past year.
Yes. I used to take my grandmother to the supermarket in 1960 or 1970-ish—early in the latter half of the 20th century—and they would not let her in because she was in a wheelchair. That attitude would be inconceivable now, yet that was only 10 years ago—sorry, maths is not my strong point. In the long term, the effect of the DDA will be different. When I first came into further education, apart from people in wheelchairs—the physically disabled—it was rare to find disabled people. Now it is common. Twelve per cent of my students have some sort of declared disability. If we go back four years, it was only 8 per cent. The DDA is having an effect, but it is also having side effects that we did not really expect.
We were talking about seamless progression. One issue that has been raised with us is that of the barriers that people face getting from college into work. In some of the evidence, the revolving door—one course leading to another and another—has been mentioned. One of the barriers was work experience, which many people said was a prerequisite for employment but which they could not get in the first place. How can your organisations help to provide the work experience that is necessary? On a similar note, when recruiting, is the interview process the best way to assess what a disabled person can give an organisation? It was suggested to us in evidence that giving people a trial period of employment would be a better way of demonstrating their skills for the job.
A big part of what we are talking about here is risk. It is a risk for a disabled person who is on incapacity benefit, and all the benefits that go with that, to go into work. Equally, many employers feel that it is a bit of a risk to take on someone who has been out of work for three or four years, who perhaps does not have exactly the qualifications that they are looking for and who has a disability. If we can create some sort of supported placement or work experience, that would take away a bit of the risk for the person who is coming off benefit and for the employer. It is a great idea, but it comes back to what I have talked about before. How can that be done within the time constraints that face a typical small business? A person who is on placement has to be productive very quickly for the placement to provide something for the business.
Work placement is one of the big issues for both disabled and able-bodied people. Schools and further education institutions struggle to get work placements for people. Research that we did showed that 96 per cent of businesses said that work placements are a great thing and that they believed that they helped to make people more employable and to move them along. However, only one in three businesses was prepared to consider offering them. There is a dichotomy there. That is a difficulty in the first instance, whether or not we are working with disabled people.
I shall talk first of all about work experience. I have regular meetings with head teachers, and they find that the cumulative effect of child protection legislation, health and safety legislation and employers liability insurance can make it difficult for young people who want to take part in work experience schemes to do so. In the case of employers liability insurance, the problem of adding someone who is undergoing training on to the insurance policy of a small business can make a work placement a daunting prospect.
I am not surprised that the figure that Howard McKenzie gave is quite high, because there is a shortage of workers. Colleges and universities need to raise awareness about people being able to go out on work placements. By the time businesses find out about such schemes, given the complexity of the insurance issues, the students are normally all gone and an employer cannot find anyone. It is a reasonably popular route into employment. The problem is not unlike the chicken-and-egg situation at graduate level, where students have qualifications but no work experience and therefore find themselves in difficulty. Some businesses will go down that route and others will not, but most routes should be tried and simplified.
We have a fair bit of evidence that suggests that job trials can be a good way of supporting disabled people into work. We also have some experience of companies that have the job trial as part of the assessment of the individual. One person who had been through a job trial then had an interview, because the employer had to interview everybody, but got every single question wrong. She would not have been employed by that employer based solely on the interview, but the line manager who had worked with her during the job trial said, "No, I want her working for me." She is still working there and doing a fantastic job. We have to be a bit sceptical about interviews, but basically they are the only show in town for most employers' selection processes.
I was interested in Paul Newman's answer to an earlier question on a disabled person's career progression once they have got into a job. The committee has taken evidence around the country, from the Highlands and Islands to the Borders. We have heard anecdotal evidence about the difficulty that disabled people have in progressing their careers beyond entry-level jobs. Young people in particular told us that they could not see how their careers would advance, although Paul Newman said that that was not his experience.
Data based on the labour force survey say that disabled people are represented in the workforce at every level. That is not to say that there are not some disabled people who find that their careers have been blocked for no good reason. They may feel that their careers have been blocked because they have a disability—which may be the case.
I had a physically disabled manager who did an excellent job for me for about 12 years until she left last year. I also had a disabled employee who left to become my main competitor in business for quite some time—it must have been something in our training. Every month, I sit on a committee of eight, of whom two are disabled. Tomorrow, I will be in London for the FSB national council, and about five of the people at the table are disabled. Many disabled people have moved into their own businesses.
Our previous panel mentioned the positive about employing disabled people, or two ticks, scheme. You will have noticed that the scheme has been criticised in evidence that we have received. The Prime Minister's strategy unit's report, "Improving the life chances of disabled people", recommends that the scheme be reviewed. What are your views on the success or otherwise of the scheme? Should employers have other incentives to employ disabled people? If so, what should those incentives be?
I have worked for an employer representative organisation for the past three years and only when I prepared to give evidence to the committee did I learn what the two ticks symbol meant. I do not think that smaller businesses out there have much awareness of the two ticks symbol and its meaning.
I agree with Niall Stuart. We must make easier a seamless transition from school, college or any organisation. However, the employer and the jobs must be there. When I did a piece with the former Minister for Disabled People at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre, I was amazed that only a handful of about 800 attendees were businesspeople. All the organisations said that it was difficult to get people into jobs, but their main aim did not seem to be going out and finding someone.
I asked the IOD what its policy on the two ticks scheme was, but it did not know what the scheme was. That supports what Niall Stuart said.
Of the five requirements that are placed on an employer that signs up for the two ticks scheme, at least three simply say, "I obey the law"—they are DDA requirements. The only one that is not a legal requirement is the guaranteed interview. On that basis alone, the scheme needs reviewing.
The point came out in the previous session about people only paying lip service to the issue, and the approach is not working if they only tick boxes. The strategy must be reviewed and it must be workable.
Perhaps the scheme does not have the right attitude anyway. The diversion of resources to more individual-centred, grass-roots work would perhaps be more effective. That is part of what is coming across from the evidence that we have heard.
No.
I hope that employers learn to understand that people with disabilities provide a great asset pool that they should start dipping into.
I cannot remember who it was, but one of the committee members was cut off when they were asking about attitudes. To me, that is the key. We can change the structure of a building, for example, but long-term changes require people's attitudes and perceptions to change. They will need to change for the barriers to work to be unlocked. I do not want to seem complacent, but that will inevitably take time, if we are being realistic. I do not think that we can change attitudes either by giving employers awards or two ticks for their application forms, or by selling the benefits of employing disabled people; we do it by selling the benefits of employing an individual to work in their workplace.
I got some warm comfort from the conversations this morning because I thought that small business had all the challenges. While I am in the position that I am in just now and while I am in business, I will ensure that I work very hard to keep the policy going. I have heard this morning of the problems in the banks and local authorities and on shop floors and so on. I thought that they were the people who would have had everything sorted out in the disability area. We have felt a little embarrassed at being the ones who do not do training or this or that. However, I am warmly surprised to find that we are moving well in comparison, although we have an awful lot to do. The only experience that I, as a small businessman, recognised this morning was that on the Isle of Lewis, where we have 240 members. Everything else concerned the big stuff and I am surprised that they are having problems because I thought that it was us in the smaller sectors who were having the problems.
I thank the committee for its attention. I suppose a system that works is more important than a campaign.
That is a good thought to end on. Again, I thank you all very much. Time is a valuable commodity and we appreciate your giving your time to us this morning.
Next
Correspondence