EMPLOYMENT (BLIND PERSONS) (Hansard, 21 January 1970)

§ Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West)

This debate, like so many of our Adjournment debates, arises from the follow-through of a Question which has been answered by the Ministry but which I wish to probe further. However, before introducing my subject tonight, may I be permitted to remind the House of the age-old custom that Mr. Speaker has the 655 responsibility of welcoming important guests to the House? Before he left the Chair, Mr. Speaker asked me to say that any disabled visitor to the Palace of Westminster is accorded an especially warm welcome.

My subject tonight is the employment of blind persons, particularly in sheltered workshops, and I wish to press upon my hon. Friend the Minister of State two points which I raised by Question on 18th December. First, I should like him to give further thought to an independent inquiry into the whole sheltered workshop system. Second, I wish to raise with him the whole question of the relationship between the gross wages which a blind person enjoys and the cost of administering the scheme. The subject of the employment of blind persons covers a wider field than that, but I have no time tonight to go into other questions which I have from time to time raised with his Ministry.

My hon. Friend has a whole file of correspondence concerning the employment of blind persons. We all rejoice that his Ministry and others are helping to have more and more blind persons in employment, not simply in sheltered workshops, but also in the general run of industry and commerce in the community.

Our special concern this evening, however, is the problem of those who have been working in sheltered workshops. I remind my hon. Friend that it is now nearly 10 years since the last inquiry was established. The Stewart Committee, which reported in 1962, was set up in 1960 when the question was first raised in the House. One of the consequences of the excellent committee, with a good deal of support from the National League for the Blind and its then secretary, Mr. T. H. Smith, was the adoption of a new approach to the way in which those workshops should be administered and the establishment of a non-profit-making body, the Industrial Advisers of Blind, Ltd., in 1964.

I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister, who has recently moved to his present post from another Department, to come to this question with an entirely fresh mind, because this has been going on for six years and it may sometimes happen that those with Ministerial 656 responsibilities are inclined to get into something of a rut. We receive advice and we have a large number of papers to understand, and it may be helpful to have a fresh look and a fresh review.

The reason why I should like my hon. Friend to examine the results so far achieved is that it is necessary to satisfy the people for whom the workshops are provided, the blind persons themselves. It is necessary to make sure that the Ministry has not simply hived off its responsibility on to the I.A.B., but still has a continuing responsibility and oversight.

It is also important that at this stage, when so much good work has been done, that my hon. Friend the Minister of State should assure himself that the I.A.B. is going in the right direction, because, no matter how much work it puts in, if the direction in which its work is being pursued is wrong, this is all the more reason why an independent inquiry should look into it to make sure that it gets on to the right road.

I congratulate the Whitley Council on the fact that only last Thursday, after I had asked Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to debate this matter, it was decided to give a well-merited increase. As a result, the rate will go up to Grade E and a man will get £15 10s. a week plus 7s. as an extra payment after five years' work. The House should, however, consider this is relation to the payment to a person on supplementary benefit. Better though the rate is, it is still not as much as we would all like.

I direct my hon. Friend's attention to the problem of women who are blind, because they were getting only 75 per cent. of the previous grade of £14 5s. They do not get the whole of the rise, but, fortunately, they get a slight increase on the rate, or 82½ per cent. This is Ministerial statistics gone a little bit mad. Why cannot they get it all? As my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is firmly pledged to the principle of equal pay for equal work, which is to be introduced over a period of years, phased according to needs, I suggest that the first need should be for blind women to get as much as blind men. I feel that this could be done extremely quickly and made the No. 1 priority.

657 I ask my hon. Friend the Minister also to look at the wide disparity in the bonus schemes for work in individual localities. I plead with him that as a result of any review undertaken either by the I.A.B. or by his Department, there should be no worsening of the position where there is a disparity between the good and the bad but rather that those which are not as favourable as the others should be brought up to the level of the best.

Perhaps my most important concern is whether there is too much harness for the horse. As I understand the figures, the maximum amount that a blind person can get in a sheltered workshop is about £800 a year. For every blind person who gets £800 a year, there is one administrator costing £1,000. In other words, it costs more to administer the workshops than to give a person a job. I wonder whether there is not a disproportion here.

What was the number of blind persons employed in 1964 and the number of adminstrators then? What are the respective figures for 1969? Has there been a growth in the administrative structure? Are we still getting an increase in the number of people who have to run the scheme?

There is a measure of dispute, which should be looked at more thoroughly than at present, in relation to the failure to develop new trades. There is perhaps a tendency to get stuck in things like packaging, where there is some small development, but there is a wide range of skills which could be developed. I cannot accept the excuse made from time to time by the Department that because some blind persons can do only simple, repetitive work, this applies to the majority, who show considerable skills in such work as brush making, basket making, upholstering, machine knitting, and so on.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that enough is being done to secure a greater supply of work for the workshops and that sufficient drive and energy is being shown in marketing the products and finding further outlets so that more and more work could flow into and from the workshops? Is it the case that perhaps the Department is relying too much on I.A.B. Ltd.? An independent inquiry might well look into a number of questions. The organisation has been estab- 658 lished long enough for an objective look to be taken at the situation. How many changes in personnel are there? What kind of continuity is there in the service? Is there lack of continuity in staff? How much public money has been given to I.A.B. Ltd. since its inception?

There is a wide number of issues, even in this narrower context, quite apart from the wider context, concerning the employment of blind persons, and I welcome the Chronically Sick and Disabled Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), and which is now going through Committee, since it tackles part of the problem. It shows the concern of both sides of the House about this matter.

But the paramount thing is to satisfy the persons with the greatest interest in this subject—the blind persons themselves, who are engaged day by day in trying to live a constructive and useful life, standing on their own feet, asking charity from no one. If we had an independent inquiry, we would satisfy them that not only was justice being done but could be seen to be done. The more opportunity they have to run their own affairs and lives, the more the community will benefit from the great contribution which these people suffering from a very serious disability can give to all of us.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Edmund Dell)

My hon. Friend, the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has raised a number of matters of great importance which have given concern to him and all those concerned with the employment of the blind. He knows that his concern is fully shared by the Government. Before I deal with the points he raised, it would be helpful to the House if I set this question against the background of the efforts being made as a whole to find satisfactory employment for the blind. This will help to put what I shall say about the particular matters raised into their proper context.

One of the most significant features about the employment of blind persons since the war has been the dramatic improvement in opportunities in open 659 employment. This movement, which was begun by St. Dunstan's and the R.N.I.B. during the war, and continued by these organisations and some local authorities in the early post war years, received further impetus from the Report of the Taylor Working Party, which was published in 1950.

It received a further boost in 1963, when the Department assumed direst responsibility for the placing of blind persons in industrial employment by creating a specialist service within the Department. This service is provided by 30 Blind Persons Resettlement Officers, nearly half of whom are themselves registered blind persons, and six Blind Persons Training Officers, who supplement training provided in the light engineering course for blind persons at the Letchworth Government Training Centre through induction training in employers' establishments. St. Dunstan's retains responsibility for the resettlement of the war blinded and the Royal Institute for the Blind, in co-operation with the Department, is responsible for placing at commercial and professional levels.

During the six years since the inception of the new arrangements 4,575 blind persons were placed in ordinary employment and 605 in workshops for the blind. At the beginning of 1969 about 7,000 blind persons were in ordinary employment while the number employed in special workshops had fallen to below 3,000, of whom more than half were aged over 50 years.

No effort is being spared to continue the development of opportunities for employment in industry and commerce under ordinary conditions as this is undoubtedly the best form of resettlement for the majority of blind persons as for disabled persons generally. We want to see that as many as possible are integrated into ordinary industrial society. It has, however, to be recognised that for some it continues to be necessary to provide employment under special conditions, and for the blind this has traditionally been provided in the Workshops for the Blind.

As my hon. Friend has said, a comprehensive review of workshops for the blind was undertaken by the Stewart working party, which sat from 1960 to 1962. The working party took the view 660 that one of the chief causes for the steeply rising costs in these workshops was the continuing reliance on traditional handcrafts such as basket, mat and brush making which were being generally superseded in ordinary industry by mechanised production and use of newer materials. To be more economic and to provide employment opportunities for the type of blind person now seeking employment in them, it was considered necessary for the workshops to introduce new-type work. To do this successfully managements would need the help of a central advisory service. The working party therefore recommended that a nonprofit-making company should be set up to provide this service. This recommendation was implemented in 1964 by the creation of Sheltered Employment Advisory Services Limited, now Industrial Advisers to the Blind Limited.

With the help of the company the number of workshops turning over to new-type work is steadily increasing and the production potential of the workers in these workshops has been substantially increased. It is however proving difficult for some of the managements to get sufficient work quickly enough to keep the factories busy, though long term prospects are good, and in consequence there has been some waiting time. This, coupled with the cost of retraining the workers and employing additional administrative staff with the necessary expertise in the new industries, has meant that the cost of providing employment in these workshops has not yet fallen very significantly, though in one or two it has.

The problems of turning over from traditional handcrafts to modern industrial work should not be underrated. It is often necessary for the management structure to be reorganised and entirely new expertise brought to bear throughout all aspects of administration. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that at 1st April, 1969 some 60 per cent. of the workers employed in the workshops were still engaged on traditional handcrafts and it has been in respect of these workers that costs of employment have risen most steeply.

This is due to the following facts. First, the wages of the workers, which are related to the wages paid to manual workers employed by local authorities, have risen over the years while their productivity certainly has not to the same 661 extent—there is often a limit to levels of production on handcraft work; secondly, there seems to be a diminishing market for handcraft products; and, thirdly, within the diminishing market it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain prices which will cover the increasing cost of materials and labour let alone overheads.

In 1969, officers of the Department made a comprehensive review of the whole position in consultation with Industrial Advisers to the Blind. To assist the movement towards modernisation the company readily agreed to give more positive help to workshops in two directions, namely, by providing, on a chargeable basis, a special sales service and also a new trades service which includes the identification of new-type work to be undertaken in the workshops, including recommendations about machinery, factory layout and staff required to enter the new trade successfully, and to give what other help may be necessary to ensure viability.

These services were announced by the company towards the end of 1969 and some workshops are already making use of them. The extent to which these services can be developed will depend upon demand and all workshops are strongly advised to take advantage of them.

Negotiations are currently proceeding between the Industrial Advisers to the Blind and the National Association of Workshops for the Blind under the aegis of the D.E.P. on the development of a national marketing scheme for these workshops.

The statutory responsibility for workshops for the blind rests on local authorities who may run workshops themselves or make use of voluntary organisations as their agents. Grants are paid by the D.E.P. towards the expenses incurred by authorities on these services and towards the cost of new premises, plant and machinery. Fees are also payable in respect of the training of blind persons. During the year ended 31st March, 1964, the total cost of the service was about £2.2 million. During the year ended 31st March, 1968, the total cost of the service was slightly over £2.7 million. The percentage rise is 22.7 compared with an approximate 25 per cent. increase in the basic wages of employees. However, because of falling numbers in the workshops, due 662 mainly to the success of the placing services, it represents a significant increase in the cost per head.

On 31st March, 1964, 3,633 blind persons were employed in workshops, and 2,817 on 31st March, 1969. For the year ended 31st March, 1964, the cost per head, excluding capital investment and training, was £586, and for the year ended 31st March, 1968, was £765. That is an increase of about 30 per cent. The final figures for 1969 are not yet available, but are likely to show an average cost of £800 per worker.

Perhaps I might now turn to some of the specific points made by my hon. Friend. I can give him a specific assurance that the Department has not simply hived off responsibility to I.A.B. There is, in fact, close collaboration between officers of the Department and the company. The Department is in direct touch with the workshops on many matters, and the workshops are visited periodically by two inspectors from the headquarters of the Department of Employment and Productivity. We are satisfied that I.A.B. has not got into a rut, as my hon. Friend put it, a point well illustrated by the two new services announced by the company at the end of last year to which I have already referred. The right direction for workshops is to introduce new work with good market potential and preferably mechanised. This is the whole philosophy of I.A.B. and the Department. Very good progress is being made in some workshops, but it is not easy to find the right solution for every workshop situation, and equal progress in all workshops cannot be expected.

The question of equal pay raised by my hon. Friend is, of course, for the National Joint Council. Workers in blind workshops will share in the eventual extension of equal pay to industry generally.

Information is not available about the number of administrative staff employed in workshops for the blind in 1964, or at the present time. The difference in the cost of administering the service and the remuneration paid to the blind workers varies widely from workshop to workshop. For example, in one workshop there was a surplus of revenue over expenditure. At the other extreme, in some departments in some workshops the total cost was substantially in excess of the workers' remuneration, being 663 well over £1,000 a year for each worker employed. To extract all the detailed information from the annual accounts in order to give global figures would entail considerable work, but the broad position is as I have already stated.

Of course, it must be realised that in workshops for the blind, as in ordinary industry, there is a tendency for the number of administrative workers compared with those on the shop floor to increase. The criterion by which a workshop should be judged is not the relationship between the number of workers and administrative staff employed, but economic efficiency. For example, the most successful workshops are usually those with mechanised production and a high ratio of administrative and executive staff to workers.

The full costs of advisory services provided by the company are being borne from central Government funds, and the total amount of public money made available to the company since its inception in 1964 to 31st March, 1969, was £301,100.

The anxieties of the blind workers in this period of great change are very understandable, and officers of the Department and I.A.B. are at all times ready to discuss problems with represen- 664 tatives of the National League of the Blind and Disabled, which is the trade union of the blind employed in these workshops.

I have tried to give a general picture of the situation. My hon. Friend has suggested a further inquiry. We had a Departmental inquiry in 1969. I think it will be seen that we are all still heavily involved in trying to put into practice the recommendations of the Stewart working party. Some may think that progress has been slow; others may think that the difficulties were perhaps underestimated. But we ought not to create further uncertainty at a time when the efforts of the last six years show promise of bringing about substantial progress.

In due course, and if it becomes clearly warranted, I should not rule out a further inquiry on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. For the time being, however, I should like to concentrate on making the present arrangements work, and this will involve the fullest co-operation between all those concerned.

If I find, on studying my hon. Friend's speech further, that there are any specific points he has raised which I have not answered, I will write to him.