HC Deb 04 April 1984 vol 57 cc1088-94

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

12.38 am
Mr. Terry Patchett (Barnsley, East)

I must make it clear to the Minister at the start that my reasons for seeking the debate arise from answers to parliamentary questions that I received from his Department relating to information that I was urgently seeking on behalf of the registered disabled unemployed in my constituency. It would not be unreasonable to say that I was amazed by the veil of secrecy that appeared as I began to seek information about them.

As I began to evaluate the extent of the problem, which one would assume would not be too difficult, I was amazed at the Minister's attitude. For example on Monday, 5 March I asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the firms in the area covered by the Barnsley, East constituency who employ their quota of disabled people in accordance with the law."—[Official Report, 5 March 1984; Vol. 55 c. 466.] To my great surprise, I was told that that was a secret. It was said that the Manpower Services Commission, which operates the quota scheme, treats information that would identify individual firms in confidence and that it would be inappropriate to publish the information requested. That reply is not acceptable to me and I do not believe that it is acceptable to the House. The MSC is a public body that is publicly accountable and it is in the interests of open government that information that we pay to acquire should be made available to hon. Members.

On 12 March I asked the Secretary of State why he considers it inappropriate to publish the names of firms which employed a quota of disabled people in accordance with the law of the land. There was yet anoher evasive reply from the Minister. He wrote: There is no obligation on employers to make quota information publicly available. Successive Governments have treated information about the quota positions of individual employers as confidential. Individual employers are free to publish this information themselves if they so wish. I do not accept that answer. If successive Governments have done that, successive Governments have been involved in worsening the problems of the disabled.

I must question the Minister's reply because a previous Labour Government treated the quota position of some individual employers as public information and prosecuted a number of them for failing to observe the quota provisions. I feel that I am entitled to have questions answered to clarify the issue in my constituency, which should not be too difficult a task. I do not know why the veil of secrecy prevails and I deplore the Department's attitude. Regardless of what has happened in the past, as a Minister in the Department of Employment it is the hon. Gentleman's responsibility to ensure that the quota laws are observed. I have not been a Member of this place while "successive Governments" have been in power, but the way in which they have treated the quota system appears to have been unfortunate, to say the least. I do not support secrecy where the law of the land is broken. Laws that were made 40 years ago should not be flouted. It appears that it was a kinder House of Commons 40 years ago, and it was certainly a more far-seeing one. It cared about the disabled and it enshrined their rights in the 1944 statute to protect them from discrimination and to allow them to work. That is what the quota system is all about.

Why is it so difficult to get a straight answer to a straight question in this place? I want the measures enacted by previous Governments to be upheld and observed. I am not interested in perpetuating the secrecy that is shown by the Government and Government quangos such as the MSC. I ask the Minister to explain why the names of firms in my constituency which are observing the law cannot be supplied to me. Their position is honourable and law-abiding.

In another question on 12 March I asked the Minister: how many firms in the area covered by the Barnsley, East constituency operate the quota scheme for the employment of disabled persons, as required by law; and what information he has regarding the number of firms to which this law applies, which are currently failing to employ the required quota. I referred only to registered disabled. Yet again, I was told that Information is not available in the precise form requested. Perhaps the Minister will explain what that answer means. He added: On 1 June 1983, there were 112 employers to which the quota provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 applied in the area covered the Barnsley, Wombwell, Goldthorpe, Mexborough and Hemsworth jobcentres. Of these, 39 met the quota and a further 68 held permits"—— permits of dispensation— to engage workers not registered as disabled." — [Official Report, 12 March, 1984; Vol. 56, c. 33.] Presumably, one adds 39 and 68, and subtracts the sum from 112, and the answer is five. Therefore, that was a complicated way of replying. One has to dissect the answer to find the figure that is embedded in it.

That means that the Minister knows that five firms in Barnsley, East are breaking the law and not meeting their statutory requirements under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. If one takes five as an average of every constituency in the country, one can see that a horrifying number of firms might be breaking the law, and the Government are doing absolutely nothing about it. There is not one hon. Member who could support that law breaking, for we are law makers, not law breakers. Not only should the Minister provide at once the information that I requested but he should enforce the Act throughout the country.

I think that the Minister will agree that enormous enthusiasm is being shown by his Government over policing an Act passed by the House, to control pickets involved in an important dispute. However, the humanity shown by the House 40 years ago in the 1944 Act, which said that firms should draw 3 per cent. of their work force from disabled workers, has been overlooked to the pain and detriment of many disabled, who face a bleak future unless they enjoy positive discrimination.

Conservative Members are enthusiastic about the Trade Union Bill, and can back it with thousands of police. However, a 40-year-old law that helps those least able to help themselves attracts no enthusiasm. The new law is enforced for the trade unions, but the old law is overlooked for the registered disabled. That is not only disgraceful but totally inhuman.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was on the receiving end of the Government's attitude to the sick and disabled when he sought to put through the House the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill, which was so cruelly killed by the Government. He then said that there were 5.5 million disabled people, and he wanted the Government to outlaw discrimination against the disabled.

I refer the Minister to the relevant parts of the 1944 Act. Section 9(1) states that where firms are not already employing the quotas, they should do so at times when vacancies occur, to allocate vacancies for that purpose". Section 9(2) states: a person to whom this section applies shall not at any time take, or offer to take, into his employment any person other than a person registered as handicapped by disablement, if immediately after the taking in of that person the number of persons so registered in the employment of the person to whom this section applies … would be less than his quota. Section 9(5) states: A person to whom this section applies who for the time being has in his employment a person registered as handicapped by disablement shall not, unless he has reasonable cause for doing so, discontinue the employment of that person, if immediately after the discontinuance the number of persons so registered in the employment of the person to whom this section applies …would be less than his quota". Section 9(6) also specifically states: Any person who contravenes subsection (2) or subsection (5) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment. I put it to the Minister that those figures are 40 years old, and he may like to consider an amendment to the 1944 Act to bring it into line with present-day prices.

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence over this matter of such importance to my constituency, and indeed to every other constituency in this country. I look forward to some real information and some straight replies from the right hon. Gentleman tonight, and to assurances that his Government will uphold the law of this country in respect of the quota system employment of disabled persons. Let us hear, loud and clear, that the Government's intention is to uphold this law, and when they intend to begin to do just that.

12.51 am
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) for allowing me to take part in the Adjournment debate which he has initiated. In raising the question of discrimination against disabled people in employment in his constituency he has done a service not only to his own constituents but to the handicapped in all our constituencies.

My hon. Friend gave examples of three occasions when he was given evasive answers. I am sure that he would not have been very surprised about that, because evasive answers are endemic with this Government. This appears to be especially true about details which are embarrassing to the Government's business paymasters. Examples can be found in other spheres—for instance, when questions have been raised about regional aid to firms which have moved to development areas and then moved out again.

Representing, as I do, a Liverpool constituency, I find it ironic that the Secretary of State for the Environment should be threatening councillors there with dire consequences if they declare what is euphemistically called an "illegal budget" aimed at serving the interests of disadvantaged people and saving them from cuts in jobs and services, while at the same time the Government refuse to take action against employers who are in contravention of the 1944 Disabled Persons (Employment) Act.

There was a time when most employers adhered to the letter of the law. They were law-abiding rather than lawbreaking. I understand that in 1960 some 60 per cent. of firms adhered to the quota. Twenty years later, only 32 per cent. of employers were obeying the law. All the others were law-breakers in this matter.

In the debate on 18 November on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill, which I introduced, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security admitted that that 40-year-old law was not being enforced. He did not say why, although it is open to any Government to ensure that the law is enforced. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East has mentioned a number of instances in which, under the Labour Government, employers were penalised for disobeying this law. I would have hoped that that would happen many more times than it did even under the Labour Government.

It is a disgrace, especially at a time of mass unemployment — for which the Government are to a large extent responsible—that disabled people should suffer even more than the able-bodied from the shortage of jobs. A week or so ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) met a delegation of disabled people's organisations from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who assured him that some 80 per cent. of disabled people in their parts of Britain were jobless. I venture to suggest that on Merseyside, and probably in Barnsley, East, the circumstances are not very different. There is an obligation on all of us who have suffering humanity at heart to do something to lift the burdens on those people, who need to work even more than the able-bodied unemployed, because employment is therapeutic for disabled people.

Government Departments themselves are not without guilt in failing to observe the quotas. The answers to a number of recent questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) have been very revealing in that respect.

It may be argued that successive Governments have been to blame, but Labour party policy accepts the need to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. If my Bill had become law and the disablement commission had been set up, I am sure that such a body could have been of great assistance to the Government in finding ways and means of ensuring that employers observe the quota.

Many cases of discrimination in employment have come to light. The Under-Secretary of State will recall that I referred to him the case of Fiona Hartley in Thirsk, not a million miles from Barnsley, East, against whom the local jobcentre discriminated, despite the Minister's answer to me. I wonder whether the jobcentre in Barnsley is adopting the same attitude as the jobcentre in Thirsk, which denied Fiona Hartley the possibility of applying for a job but only a few hours later sent her able-bodied sister, who was married and used a different surname, after the selfsame job. Action must be taken against that king of discrimination against the disabled.

My hon. Friend has done a service in raising this matter today. I hope that it will be a first move to engage the Government's interest and concern to ensure that the 1944 Act is enforced, especially at this time of mass unemployment. The Government should not tell the miners and the Liverpool councillors to obey the law when 68 per cent. of employers are being allowed to get off scot free while ignoring their obligations to the most needy members of society.

12.57 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) on his success in the ballot and on choosing as the subject of this short debate a matter that understandably causes concern to many people in his constituency and throughout the country. I congratulate him, too, on the temperate way in which he put his case and I know that he speaks with the authority of a vice-chairman of his party's employment committee.

The House will recognise that the hon. Gentleman and I, and indeed the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), are at one in acknowledging that many disabled people face difficulties which they feel especially acutely in finding and retaining suitable jobs. I respect the hon. Gentleman's concern and his efforts to do what he can to promote employment among disabled people in the Barnsley area; I know that he attaches great importance to that.

As the Minister responsible, I accept that the Government must recognise and respond to the special needs of the disabled which arise to the extent that they are at a relative disadvantage in the labour market. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government remain firmly committed to maintaining the considerable level of assistance available to help to improve the employment prospects of disabled people.

The hon. Gentleman devoted much of his speech to one particular aspect of the range of measures which help to promote the employment of disabled people — the statutory quota scheme. He referred to what he alleged to be a veil of secrecy which surrounded the answers that I gave to his written questions. I must immediately repudiate that allegation. There was no intention to conceal anything, and still less to mislead the hon. Gentleman. He said that, in the case of one answer, he could arrive at the figure that he required only by subtracting one figure from another. I do not think that that is a very arduous requirement, but if the hon. Gentleman objected to the form of the answer, he could have written to me again. If he cares to write to me again after this debate on that or any other subject, I will do my best to ensure that he receives an intelligible answer.

The hon. Gentleman claimed that there was evidence to show that a number of firms in Barnsley were breaking the law by not fufilling their quota commitments. The hon. Member for West Derby also used the phrase "breaking the law". I shall try to clarify the hon. Gentlemans' thinking on this point, and I must refute the allegations. First, however, I should like to say a word or two about the quota scheme in general, in order to put the matter in context.

I readily accept that the quota is still regarded by many registered disabled people and others with an interest in these matters as an important safeguard for their employment prospects. Over the years, it has undoubtedly done much to help the disabled gain and keep jobs. It has been with us in broadly its present form since the end of the second world war. As both hon. Gentlemen will recognise, it originated in quite different circumstances. The Act was passed in 1944 in anticipation of large numbers of wounded and mutilated people returning from service for their country and in recognition of the fact that society as a whole had an obligation to see that they ranked equally in their employment prospects with those who were not mutilated.

Circumstances have altered since then, and the original concept of the 1944 Act has to some extent been overtaken by circumstances, although it remains entirely valid as a symbol of our commitment to help disabled people's employment.

Mr. Patchett

Are we talking about some Act of whose existence I was not aware—a war disabled persons' Act —or about the Act of 1944? Has the 1944 Act been amended to apply only to the war disabled, or does it still apply to disabled people, full stop?

Mr. Clark

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the origins of the Act have to be seen in the context of 1944, when it was expected that a large number of wounded and mutilated people would be coming on to the labour market.

I will explain to the hon. Gentleman why his allegations of breaking the law are to some extent misconceived. There is not much time left, and I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not give way again. The hon. Member for West Derby used up more of my time than that of his hon. Friend.

The quota no longer operates as originally intended. One can argue about the reasons why that is so, but there can be no disputing the facts. The quota scheme applies only to registered disabled people, and registration is and always has been voluntary. For some years now, there have been nowhere near enough registered disabled people to enable all employers to meet their 3 per cent. quota in full. Even if they wished to do so, they could not. Registered disabled people currently account for only 1.1 per cent. of the total work force and are far outnumbered by those who suffer some disability but choose not to register. The provisions of the 1944 Act refer to registered disabled people. The first thing that we must recognise is that it is physically impossible for employers to comply, even with the best will in the world. There are not enough registered disabled people to go round.

The Government have asked the Manpower Services Commission to examine ways of making the quota scheme more effective within the framework of existing legislation. It has set up a working group including grepresentatives from the Confederation of British Industry, The Trades Union Congress and voluntary organisations, which will report later this year.

In Barnsley, as in the rest of the country, the majority of employers do not and cannot employ the full 3 per cent. quota of disabled people. That does not affect the formal quota position. Many such firms employ other disabled people who have chosen not to register. They are quite a large number and many may suffer acute conditions, as the hon. Member for West Derby has often reminded us in his valuable speeches.

The hon. Gentleman quoted some figures that I gave him in a recent parliamentary reply which showed that, in an area that is somewhat wider than his constituency because of the coverage of the jobcentres concerned, out of 112 employers subject to the quota provisions, 39 met the 3 per cent. quota and a further 68 had obtained permits allowing them to recruit other than registered disabled people.

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in assuming that the small number of employers who neither fulfil the quota, nor hold a current permit, must be breaking the law. This is simply not the case. I must emphasise this point and make the position quite clear. It is not an offence to be below the 3 per cent. quota. An offence occurs only if an employer unreasonably discharges a registered disabled person when he is or would become below the quota or if he recruits other than registered disabled people when the firm is below quota and without a valid permit.

There are proper checks on employers' compliance with the quota requirements and I can assure the House that statutory duties are not being neglected or ignored as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

The figures on quota compliance are available and I have given them to the hon. Gentleman. The overall national figures are published each year in the Department of Employment Gazette, and, following the practice adopted by all previous Governments, we do not publish information about the quota positions of individual employers. I am quite sure that it is right to treat the information provided in this way as confidential, although there is nothing to prevent them from publishing the information themselves. Many have chosen to do so since the introduction of the requirement under the Companies Act 1980, whereby employers have to include a statement of their policy towards the employment of disabled people in the directors' report.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past One o' clock.