Disabled People: Employment (Hansard, 17 October 1984)

§ Lord Henderson of Brompton
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie)
My Lords, the draft code of practice has been received from the Manpower Services Commission and is being considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The working group which is considering suggestions for improving the operation of the quota scheme within the framework of existing legislation now aims to submit its report to the Manpower Services Commission in the New Year. My right honourable friend would expect to receive the MSC's advice shortly thereafter.

§ Lord Henderson of Brompton
My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I first congratulate him most warmly on his elevation to the Cabinet. Also, if I may, I congratulate his noble friend Lord Young of Graffham on his elevation to this House and to the Cabinet from the Manpower Services Commission. This is a most notable autumn double for the House of Lords. Is the Minister aware that presently disabled people and employers, I believe, at all levels will very much welcome the progress that has been made on the drafting of this code of good practice? However, would the code not 980 have an enhanced status if it had a statutory basis or backing, as recommended by the National Advisory Council? Secondly, although I note that there is still a working programme on the quota scheme, is it right or even respectable that the 1944 Act should remain unamended on the statute book when the Manpower Services Commission recommended, or reported, as long ago as 1981 that employers, are being expected to comply with an impracticable law"? Should not an impracticable law be either amended or repealed?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Young and myself, I am most grateful for the kind remarks of the noble Lord. It certainly would be very difficult, given the representation of disabled people within your Lordships' House and given the connection of my noble friend and myself with the MSC, for us to dodge any responsibilities where the disabled are concerned. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would like to see the legislation amended. We believe it would be wrong to pre-empt any decisions until we have had the MSC's advice, but I should emphasise that the commission has been asked by my right honourable friend to look at ways of improving the effectiveness of the quota scheme within the existing legislative framework.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked a further supplementary question about the existing framework. It is difficult, of course, in that people who are disabled are now more reluctant to register than they used to be and that is probably at the heart of the problem. However, I will take account of what the noble Lord suggested and refer it back to the MSC.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, may I too congratulate my noble friend most warmly in his promotion to the Cabinet and ask whether in further consideration of this matter he will bear in mind that the largest single group of disabled people are the mentally handicapped? As a result of voluntary effort many of them are already in employment. They make good and steady workers within their limitation and many more could be employed. Will he consider that perhaps the best way of securing that will be not by further legislation but by pursuing the good will of employers?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I again thank my noble friend for his remarks. He shows great wisdom in his supplementary question. The British are anxious to cope and help people who are less well off than the majority. I am sure that is the best way forward. As a result we have asked the MSC to look at ways of improving the position for the disabled, including the mentally disabled, within the existing legislative framework

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, may I first of all join with the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Renton, in the best wishes that they have conveyed to the noble Earl on his promotion to Cabinet rank. There is no question but that after the disappointing employment figures that have recently been issued he will be ever more in the firing line. I also commend the 981 noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for persisting in his questioning on this subject. I ask the Minister whether he will pay special regard to the point made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, about making some of the recommendations obligatory in the final analysis? It is the view of many noble Lords in this House—perhaps the majority—that to make provision on anything less than a mandatory basis may make the whole operation worthless.

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind personal remarks. I think that the measure of our sincerity and the measure of our anxiety about the position of the disabled cannot be adduced only by legislative provision. The best thing is to try to help disabled people improve their situation. I know, as the Minister who was once responsible, that the MSC had this very much in mind. I am glad to be able to tell the House that, at a time of very severe dfficulties in the employment scene, sheltered employment and other provisions for disabled people has kept pace. I have to confess that I am something of a sceptic about whether legislation is always the best way forward. I repeat that the MSC has been asked to look at ways of improving the situation within the present legislative position. However, if further legislation will really do the job we would not rule it out.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, in the meantime does the noble Earl agree that the 1944 Act is not by any means impracticable for a vast number of firms, very many of which are not employing their quota of disabled persons? Cannot the Government through their various local and regional agencies do a great deal more to urge firms to comply with the quota requirements in the 1944 Act?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, as I suggested in my earlier answer to a supplementary question, the real trouble with the 1944 Act is to some degree a problem of success. Disabled people have felt themselves more integrated with society at large than perhaps they did at that time. As a result they are more reluctant than they were then to treat themselves as a special or specially handicapped group. They simply require society to take some account of relatively minor difficulties. They want to be treated as ordinary people. That is one of the reasons why the quota Act of 1944 is somewhat unrealistic in that disabled people are not registering themselves under it.