Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 25 Nov 1999

25 Nov 1999 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Carers Strategy

Aitken, Bill Con Glasgow Watch on SPTV

We welcome today's motion. I congratulate the minister and Kay Ullrich on their contributions to an evocative and important matter.

The minister is also to be congratulated on being quite honest. He has not tried to claim that he is putting a great deal more money in. He is talking about £5 million. If we bear in mind my comments about hype over the past few days, the minister's speech made a refreshing change.

The Administration is to be congratulated on making constructive proposals. We shall await with interest—and perhaps increasing cynicism— the final proposals. However, at this stage, there seems to be consensus, which is to be encouraged.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to pay my own tribute, and the tributes of the Conservative party, to carers. They are an army of unsung heroes whose efforts go largely unrecognised— and certainly unrewarded. Parliament has a clear duty to do everything possible to recognise and reward—albeit in a detached but realistic way— the efforts that many people throughout the country make to assist those who are less fortunate.

What is the profile of a carer? As Kay Ullrich quite properly said, carers are usually women. Perhaps, Kay, it is because women live longer than men that, most of the time, they get the heavy end of the load. Women's contribution towards caring is certainly significant.

I note that the minister has undertaken to ask, in the next census, the appropriate questions to get a clearer profile of carers. The general household survey gives some interesting figures, and I commend it to him. In particular, it draws attention to the number of young people under the age of 16 who are actively involved in caring. Something like half a million people in Scotland are involved in caring, and 5,000 of them are under 16. To

them in particular we owe a real debt.

How can we make matters better? Ultimately, more resources are the answer, but—this is perhaps where I part company with Kay Ullrich and the amendment she moved—we have to recognise that local government's contribution over the past few years has not been especially significant. As I am sure Susan Deacon will accept, bedblocking is a problem. If local government had been providing appropriate community care services, we would not have arrived at the present situation—more than 1,700 patients confined in hospital who could be receiving care out in the community, where they would be very much happier and able to contribute to wider society.

How can we extend the body of carers? In most cases, carers are relatives; in other cases, they are—as Iain Gray said—close personal friends. But is a carer not also someone who works for charity, or who is a member of a church or voluntary organisation, and who gives of his or her time in order to assist? Should we not be examining—as Kay Ullrich suggests—our taxation system so that we can help people to make that contribution to caring, and perhaps encourage more people to do so?

It is not, of course, a question only of finance. Iain Gray dealt with that point. I would, however, like to mentions one statistic that I think is worth noting. If we paid the 500,000 people who contribute towards caring a nominal amount of £40 a week, the bill would work out at £1 billion a year, which measures up almost exactly to the social work budget for the current financial year. Perhaps that point should be recognised and accepted.

Thought should also be given to people who make their contribution in the more inaccessible rural parts of Scotland. Surely we should consider extending the rebate on fuel duty to community transport schemes. That would have a marked effect on people in those areas.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 25 Nov 1999

In the same item of business